The link
http://www.xgr.com/index.php?id=8931
Enjoy...
Hellenes
Printable View
The link
http://www.xgr.com/index.php?id=8931
Enjoy...
Hellenes
Variety is good. There was a similar MTW review. At least this one didn't claim it was too hard because people run away. ~:)
Poor review....poor indeed.
I wouldn't get too worked up. Some reviewers are just like that. They mention 1 or 2 negative points (which aren't negative at all - he's said himself that there is an automanage function) and then they slap a 60% on the score. He didn't really distort the points (I've seen worse reviews for other games) but mentions everything in a very poor light. He obviously DIDN'T want to like the game at all for some reason and was quite unfair but with the tons of good reviews out there, 1 mediocre review won't hurt sales and general opinion.
I've played, enjoyed and even modded games which have generally lower review scores than R:TW (for example: Temple of Elemental Evil (CRPG by Troika)) so I don't read too much into reviews. If I think I'll like a game, I'll buy it anyway and I certainly won't base my judgement on any 1 review.
ARGGG! THE RED MIST IS DESCENDING!! MUST KILL!
Eh. Sounds like he's part of the "c'mon, I haven't killed anything in 3 minutes!" crowd. He may be pacified by running an endless loop of Gladiator with an old PS2 controller in his hand. One man's opinion, I guess.
I've gone whole sessions without ever engaging in a battle. It was just the way it turned out. I like the building part best. Once you're huge, the fun quite often will wane. Then you have to get creative. I had fun one night just reorganizing my homeland garrisons for more economy and efficiency. Sure, I had some fights, but I wasn't the one starting them. Games like IL2 and submarine sims also have these kind of criticisms. They want to get in the air and be in one immediate and constant dogfight, or shoot 6 torpedoes a minute. The hunt is a lot of the fun. Hell, some of my best times in IL2 is when I'm nursing my bucket of bolts home, with no rudder controls and a rough engine.
You get a solid B+ on the inflammatory topic title though. ~;)
He makes fun of the simple city building features but that is what I like about it. The tech tree is so much simpler from MTW but too tech up still takes a long time. It makes it much more enjoyable for the fact that very few buildings require other buildings and also you can specialize a certain unit in each city while ignoring the other tech buildings.
If I want city building I'll go back to pharoah
Hey. Lets not say anything we cant take back about Pharoh(i love that game) horrible review tho.
It is very poorly written; full of poor transitions and redundancies. It reads like a highschooler's book review. The rating seems a bit arbitrary as well. Let's just hope he or she was not compensated in any way for such a weak effort.
He got one point wrong that you "cannot" zoom to details when the battle happens. I didn't find that out in the first 2 hours of playing, either. I also have a feeling that this guy only played 2 hrs to write this reveiw? ~;)
You checked out their 'Contact Us' page? Looks like the sophomore dingbats society.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppiluliumas
And this comment:This sort of management is required to advance the game but I personally don't want to play medieval a Sim City. I'm bloodthirsty and want to fight, fight, fight! This is Rome: Total War after all. kind'a sums up what the reviewer is looking for.
And the name of the mag XGR what's that stand for XGames Reviews? I personally don't give a Cheney what some consoler thinks about my PC games.
Anyone who refers to R:TW (or any of the TW series) as a RTS game just shows their lack of understanding of the game. It's obvious this guy was looking for a RTS game, and didn't find it here. Because, of course, R:TW isn't a RTS game.
I did find it an amusing read. I mean, first he complains about the tedious city managing. Then he mentions how you can get that automanaged. And then he complains about missing out on half the game. Make up your mind!
Bh
CGW gave Rome Total war 5-1/2 stars out of 6. They devoted a full paragraph to the shortcomings of the game -- poor AI and various well documented bugs. I thought this was an excellent review and rating.
"The Campaign map view is completely three dimensional. You can rotate and zoom in real-time (to a point). There are even small details such as trees swaying in the wind. That's cool but it will not save this game from the brutally dull city building mode."
WTF?
:confused:
This guy is a n00b in all aspects- n00b game player, n00b at history, n00b at reviewing, and most importantly for his job, a n00b at actually spending enough time on the game to find out what it actually is like, rather than making stuff up like Chemchok pointed out. (do trees really sway in the wind? Maybe I haven't been paying much attention, but I haven't seen it)
Dontcha just love it when the console and RTS kiddies express an opinion? It's sooooo cuuute!
R0m3 SuXx0rz! W/\rKraFt 3 r00lz! ~:rolleyes:
I'd like to grab a 39oz Louisville Slugger and take some batting practice using the reviewer's head as a ball... :furious3:
all who hate stupid people say; I!
"The only negative thing about the battles is that you are unable to really zoom down to the battlefield to view all of the gory details. That only happens, briefly, via cut scenes and usually before and after a battle."
~:eek: LMAO, did he even play the game?
I zoom down very often to see my men fighting, I can´t believe a reviewer didn´t even find the camera controls. :dizzy2:
Does he have a pc at all?
Guys you fail to see the hidden positive results this review will grant us. And I'm quite serious...
Maybe this review will have a good number of those consolers stay away from the game and thus any of the boards attached to the game. That way we don't have to deal with them when they whine over the fact that they can't understand why the troops run away after being charged in the rear by cavalry, or why their assassins fail now and then, or "how do I get to Ireland?"
Be pleased... I am.
But of course it doesn't change my opinion of the person's intellect and ability to understand the small aspects of the game (such as the camera ~:confused: )...
Oh, he played it. But he didn't like the strategy map city building (his prerogative) , copped an attitude and then rushed through the battles without exploring what was going on, again, because he was disappointed straight up. Failure to appreciate the graphics reveals a very hasty review indeed. Hell, the screen shots tell a different story and there they sit right next to his text! He never mentioned the AI nor did he say he had played TW before. He did say that he was in a hurry to start fighting. Then he wraps up with this beaut, "Unfortunately, all of the juicy action bits get dulled by the tedious, not-so-real-time city and army building on the world map. Rome: Total War isn't a bad game but it's not great either. Aside from the Roman theme this game doesn't stand out from everything else in its genre." (my italics) Now what genre do we suppose he means? It's not a traditional RTS but that's the shoe he wants to fit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
I saw a similar review in a magazine that covers consoles and PC games that gave Rome a 75 out of 100 citing weak AI and substandard graphics. The opposite page reviewed a traditional RTS Warcraft clone with graphics they loved to death! Go figure. The graphics in both looked great to me but the other game could not handle thousands of troops...
Genre straddlers like TW can give editors fits. You have to get the right person to do the review because no one should critique a genre they dislike. You will get different takes on different aspects of the game depending on whether the RTS guy or the wargame guy does the review. One thing is certain, no one gives a game a good review if they don't like it and their reasons can be valid or not.
Reads like a babel fish translation. This guy is obviously still in his teens.
How dull is that "I don't like the Campaign map, im giving it 60% no matter how many other things I love about this game!"
Bet hes a counter-strike player.
That's a very good point. Even better than building a giant wall to keep the consoles out! ~DQuote:
Originally Posted by Kraxis
well youre right im very angry about that review. i mean how can you give a great game a 60 just becuse of 1 negative point.
I guess his review begs the question, what would YOU give RTW.
Personally, my first impressions were WOW, this is fantastic, and I'm still enthralled by the graphics and intricacies of the game.
Still it would be hard to give it 10/10 because of the zillions of errors. If most the worst errors( hate that word bugs... I reserve that for a game which won't work.. it actually is one of the most stable games I've played), please fix suiciding generals , armies which get slaughtered by towers, bribery and the wonders. The rest I can live with till more fine tuning.
My score without the patch? 9/10(for those errors) With the patch ? as close to 10 as you can get.
*urge to kill rising, rising RISING*
There's a good listing of many reviews here:
http://www.metacritic.com/games/plat.../rometotalwar/
I haven't read CGW's review but PCGamer's comments were Ok and IMHO Adrenaline Vault makes a pretty fair review. Anyway most reviewers out there having to review many games do not spend much time on any one particular game and AI exploits which is one of the game's more glaring weaknesses are unlikely to be noticed unless the reviewer is a dedicated one or has some experience with similar games.
It is clear that in terms of graphics and interface, R:TW has surpassed its predecessors and although many aspects of diplomacy are a bit problematic currently it is also considerably expanded and improved over previous games. No doubt everyone realises that the AI needs some serious tweaking and there are certainly quite a number of txt file errors but with promises of a patch on the horizon on this matter, I strongly feel giving it any less than 85% would be too harsh a judgement.
In the meantime, there are always self imposed house rules we can play with so as to lessen particular AI exploits and also applying mods to correct txt file errors.
Let's face it the guy was expecting an RTS But did not get, TW series is not an RTS & shouldn't be described that way, Its a mix, a hybrid, a genre of its own.
For Example, If you Hate Basketball, & I gave you THE basketball of all time you wouldn't give it the rating it deserves, not to mention that the guy seems to have had somthing different in mind, but I gotta say 60% is ridiculous.
Another one:
http://www.gameinformer.com/NR/exere...A6FD0EF85F.htm
Enjoy...
Hellenes
Or my own original review, which can be read here , which got me an abusive email from one "Matthew Hunt" who claimed to be a beta tester for activision and told me that If I thought the beta testing was badly done, i was wrong. needless to say, he could never provide any proof of where he worked (yahoo email address for instance) so I just dismissed it as a fanboy getting a little angsty.
nice to know people read the reviews though!
Matthew Hunt's page on Moby GamesQuote:
Originally Posted by Ashen
oh goody, a cat fight. ~D
choose your weapons; slings or sarissas? :duel:
A sound if short review...
I'm surprised by the outburst from that Hunter guy. You said it wasn't betatested, but even he must know that you based the conclusion on glaring oversights, meaning that you couldn't comprehend such faults went by the testers. It doesn't help him at all to come and say "Well it was tested" it only shows that he didn't do a very good job at it. To be honest he should just have kept his mouth shut and bit in the sour apple as we say in Denmark.
Geez, lighten-up, Guys. This is probably the first time the little tyke has seen his name in print. Hope none of you think he's getting paid for his efforts. But on the other hand, he DID recognize some of the negative aspects of the game that we discuss almost daily. If they are that obvious to him, they must be items that should be corrected. Since it's evident he actually spent little time with the game before reviewing it, I find it interesting that a brand-spanking-noob (how about that for coming up with a new term?) stumbled across some important issues. He is correct in intimating the game will not stand on the graphics alone. This is a campaign/strategy game. OK, he seems to eventually forget that, too, but what-the-hey, maybe CA will read it.
To be fair to Matthew Hunt, beta testers simply test the game for problems and how well the mechanics work. They don't implement the suggested changes. He and the other testers could have done an excellent job, making note of suicidal generals, etc, only to see Activision ignore their requests to make any changes beyond game-stopping bugs... a frustrating experience I'm sure.
Going through something like that and then reading "They didn't beta test the game" and " who beta tested this game? Stevie Wonder?" might have set me off too. ~D
I looked at what previous reviews the site has done. They are almost all fast paced games. RTW is not fast paced. I have a feeling RTW is not this persons cup of tea.
There are negative things about the game and he pointed out some. But it did not deserve a 60 score.
Besides, nowadays, the only reason I look at reviews is to get a feel of how long the game play is. If it is a somewhat decent game and long play (longer then 15 hours to play) I'll buy it. If it is equivalent to the Lord Himself comming down for tea but only lasts 2 hours I wont buy it.
chemchok, in that case he could have won out easily by just saying "It was tested and we found many of those things but they weren't corrected". He wins argument no matter what... If it is because he can't say that (which is odd) then he should stay away from abuse as it only implies that he feels personally insulted because certain faults have come to light.
It should be rather easy to give the reviewer the feeling that is certainly wasn't the tester's fault without saying much.
It's a pity I still dont have the emails (reformatted on the monday after halloween thanks to a friend getting 17 variations of mydoom on my pc), but yes, it did stray heavily into abuse of my review and my lack of knowledge about programming, games and beta testing.
For the record, I have a first class degree in computer science from the University of Ulster, Jordanstown campus, united kingdom. But hey, can't verify that either ;) (I dont get the actual parchment until 25th jan as I missed summer graduation ceremony)
Thanks for the heads up about his rap sheet at moby games. He did also say he'd worked on tony hawks underground 2 and said that all beta testing was internal with activision which is what led me to think he was talking poppycock.
I reviewed Rome for the PC gaming magazine I work for; I write for fun, mainly, but it’s good to get paid as well. I gave the game 94% rating; the editor has raised it to 95% on his own accord.
Yet people remain baffled when they find out just how much I criticize Rome and at that I, at the same time, still think it got the deserving score. There is simply no worthy rival out there for Rome, apart from Medieval and Shogun. LOTR? Give me a break… :rolleyes:
Nothing wrong with what he says here!Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
It is NOT possible to zoom entirely down to the ground, it stops a little short so you cannot view the troops from an imaginary first person view.
It doesn't bother me really, but obviously it bothers him... to each their own.
I don't think it's a good review either, but that's how theese things work. If a reviewer doesn't like the game, for whatever reason, it won't get a good score. Not much to do about that, RTW has got plenty of stunning reviews anyway...
The GameInformer review is poor because it presents a distorted and very incomplete description of the game.
Regarding the campaign, the reviewer says “I often felt pigeonholed into doing what they (the Senate) wanted me to do rather than going about the business of conquering the world my way.”
Here he criticizes Rome because he was directed by the Senate to go in a direction he would rather not take without bothering to state (if indeed he knows) that Senate instructions are not mandatory. Nor does he add that when playing a non-Roman faction the Senate is a moot point. In fact, the review implies that a single Roman family is the only faction in the game. No other factions are ever mentioned. This is a colossal omission. No wonder he thinks replayability is only moderate. Once I recognize that a reviewer has played a game so superficially as to omit such basic features I tune them out. If I had never played the game though, how would I know?
As initially released, Rome: Total War is not perfect. Good reviews describe a game accurately and thoughly, spot imperfections and go on to weigh them against a game’s positive aspects before culminating in a judgement.
CGW did a nice job not because they gave Rome 4½ stars out of 5 but because the game they described is the game that I have played a lot, warts and all.
You did notice that he said it only went down like he wanted it to in the small cut-scenes (obviously when generals die)? Anyway, when that happens it is only down as far as we can normally go, or marginally closer, meaning he didn't zoom at all. The man apparently didn't take the time to play the Sons of Mars, even if just the first battle.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tocca
Btw, agree completely with Nelson. Too bad you can't make certain that the reviewers change their reviews. The one you mentioned could be quite damaging.
Cant we make a mod in which we can kill him and his followers.
~:)
It's clearly a review by a click-fest kiddie. I'd take it with a pinch of salt.
After all if I was dumb enough to think I could review UT2004 I'd probably give that less than 60% too. Reviewers are only human and can only judge things on their own personal likes and dislikes.
Anyone who watches Gamesville on TV will see the sort of rubbish that reviewers can come up with if they don't understand the genre of the game they are considering.
I mean Gamesville actually considered LOTR4 a playable game. ~:confused:
Well I read the first review, did not read all the replis in this thread.
But it clearly seems like the reviewer never played the series even, to be able to understand that this game is not an RTS (Real Time Strategy) in the sense that he was expecting it, (AOE, C&C etc etc, which in reality are RTT games, as its all about Tactics and not Strategy).
The Total War series is for me in its own Genre, its an RTS (Real Tactics & Strategy) Game. ;)
So I consider the Review Invalid in itself since the reviewer's view has no understanding of the subject.