the most logical NapoleonTW review so far

**antisocialmunky** · 03-24-2010, 13:01

Originally Posted by loony

I believe this thread needs a follow up: http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/napoleon-to...1075020p1.html
TWO STARS from gamespy...

This review is completely BS. Firstly, he rated ETW 5/5 last year when it was basically 3/5. NTW has been highly praised by the community with plenty of honest player reviews. This guy has simply missed his check from Creative Assembly this time. This game deserves 5/5 since it is far improved then ETW. It has plenty of multiplayer features (something this review does not even mention) and other features like supply lines which makes the game far more immersive.

Even Darth gave this game 7.5/10, which tells you how much this review fails in comparison. (Darth being one of the most trusted modders for TW games)

Tom Chink, please play the game next time.

Yeah I'm going to have to agree there.

**Fisherking** · 03-24-2010, 16:26

I may have said it before but the reviewers are gun-shy after ETW and have unfairly cut the ratings NTW deserved to a point more deserving of ETW.

NTW is the best playing game of the whole series and to give it such a lackluster rating is more than shameful.

They are basing the review on the anger of a lot of people at ETW rather than doing a good job of evaluating NTW.

It has a metascore of 82 or 84 while ETW had a 90? What is with that?

**Graphic** · 03-24-2010, 17:04

Originally Posted by Fisherking

I may have said it before but the reviewers are gun-shy after ETW and have unfairly cut the ratings NTW deserved to a point more deserving of ETW.

This is my view as well.

They all played ETW for maybe 2 days, didn't have time to see the massive amount of bugs, gave it scores usually reserved for Half-Life games, and now they feel like idiots.

The reviews for ETW were unfortunate but it's just horrible to unfairly take that out on NTW in order to score some cool points with the community.

"Hey, look, I get it now, TW games suck!" Except now NTW is actually awesome so they still look like idiots.

Removing personal taste and all that, I seriously can't see how someone could sanely rate NTW 1.0 lower than ETW 1.0. It's just a superior game in nearly every respect; all the units are unique, the map is much more detailed, runs way better, is very stable and non-buggy, many new features, better graphics, etc. I'm not saying people aren't allowed to like ETW more or anything like that but NTW is just a better made product, and that's a fact...in my opinion

**Crazed Rabbit** · 03-24-2010, 18:51

I'll point out that the author of the NTW Gamespy review is not the same person who gave ETW five stars for gamespy.

It's Tom Chick, the man who recognized the problems of ETW ( "Instead, once again, Creative Assembly has made a game that its AI cannot play. " ) and give it an appropriately bad rating in this review.

In short, he did play the game.

The glaring discrepancy between Gamespy's ETW review and NTW review should be blamed on their ETW reviewer (Allen Rausch).

CR

**Graphic** · 03-24-2010, 20:03

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

I'll point out that the author of the NTW Gamespy review is not the same person who gave ETW five stars for gamespy.

Touché. I stand by my post though, as it's the general vibe I get from most of the reviews. There's no logical reason why NTW gets harsher reviews across the board compared to ETW. It might also be due to the game press' tradition of rating expansions lower than the mother game (NTW being an expand-alone), no matter how much better they are. I guess most reviewers give most of their points out for innovation instead of actual fun.

**Fisherking** · 03-24-2010, 20:14

CR

your link is not loading.

Never the less, the game is starting on its fourth week after release. Those who have the game seem to love it.

Most of the grumbling comes from those who felt burned over ETW and have not bought NTW.

I have seen no post release reviews in the press or online. From media sources, it is dead quiet.

CA made changes to the game after the initial press version and they must have gotten it right, because the gamers playing the game have very few complaints and they are not screaming for a patch yesterday.

This is not ETW. You can tell it was developed from ETW but it is far and away a much cleaner, smoother experience and the thing is as stable as a brick wall.

The AI is improved but it is never going to match a human player but the drop-in battle option allows most battles to have a human opponent if you want.

For those reasons and others I am forgetting player are baffled by the lack of solid reviews and the poor scores given it by the media.

If you played it you would understand....and I don’t mean the demo.

**gollum** · 03-24-2010, 20:22

Most likely ETW was meant to be reviewed well. You know and i know that CA's and SEGA's new engine attempt wouldn't go without the necessary promo back up. You need to oil the wheel for it to turn if you get my point.

Also in general reviewers skewer games of lesser scope and micromanagement and more focus, lesser layer complexity and more deep strategy like smaller more concentrated campaigns in expansions, which is of course wrong. There are plenty of games that were top notch in terms of strategy, tactics and AI including STW and MTW, but many reviewers complained: "Mediocre campaign layer" for STW - read not enough toy micromanagement tasks, "aging graphics engine" in MTW - read graphics are more valued than gameplay etc etc.

Most of the criticisms in the current review are true but they should have been expressed for ETW where they were 100 fold more pronounced, not to mention in M2 and RTW that started the commercial spiral of CA. I didn't see any reviewer being allowed to write anything against that trend then, and it is the very same trend being criticised now. They were all awe taken by the 3D engine and were giving out almost 99% scores. These same criticisms about the AI are expressed in the tw community at large from 2004 automn on. Its really old news.

NTW is definitely not what tw was, nor could it ever be, given what the fanbase and CA's commercial goals are. It seems to be however a definite improvement in terms of delivery, concept and depth over ETW. Most of Darth's points are with the AI (understandable) and the aesthetics (half understandable). I think there wasn't a single TW fan that was expecting the AI of NTW to play how multiplayers play in ranged warfare battles. That's what the drop-in feature and mp campaign are for though. Seriously for all of you you have not had an mp experience before, just get online and play - there is a whole new world that you are missing - a world that makes TW far far more interesting and deep than the overmicromanagement ladden SP game. I promised myself after the dishonest hype for ETW and the mess that it was that i'm not buying NTW, and i stick by my word. However it is clear objectively to me that NTW is far better than ETW and it has many features that can make up for worthwhile modding and interesting mp play.

**caravel** · 03-24-2010, 21:48

The gamespy review seems to be centred around the game apparently not improving enough over ETW?

As has already been alluded to, "official" reviews by sites such as the one in question are utterly unreliable though, and personally I take no notice whatsoever of them when making a buying decision. This review (and reviewer) does seem much more realistic (and familiar) than the original (5/5) ETW gamespot review though. I suspect that through want of oil, the wheel seized up somewhat?

The best gauge of how good a game is, is to read player experiences, both positive and negative, posted on the forums. Magazine/game site reviews are not worth getting ones knickers in a twist over.

**gollum** · 03-24-2010, 23:25

Originally posted by Asai Nagamasa
The gamespy review seems to be centred around the game apparently not improving enough over ETW?

Indeed. However while some of the reasons are understandable (like the AI), others are not imo, like say the scope of the campaign. There is nothing wrong with a smaller campaign, with more focus, however for these guys there is lots wrong. They always prefer larger scope, and CA has tried to cater for this trend say in the M2 campaign and in ETW. Large scope campaigns tend to over simplify the map in order to represent such huge areas and the end effect is the more factions/more units/non-plausible historically campaign progress.

I can't really say how much NTW improves over ETW because i haven't played the game.

I suspect that through want of oil, the wheel seized up somewhat?

Possibly that or perhaps some of the reviewing sites felt that they overdid it with the eulogies of ETW and wanted to restore some of their credibility after the debacle of the divergeance between reviewer ratings and user ratings on the net. It was very entertaining and satisfying to see that by the way ;)

The best gauge of how good a game is, is to read player experiences, both positive and negative, posted on the forums. Magazine/game site reviews are not worth getting ones knickers in a twist over.

Bingo.

**gollum** · 03-24-2010, 23:57

Originally posted by Asai Nagamasa
The gamespy review seems to be centred around the game apparently not improving enough over ETW?

Indeed. However while some of the reasons are understandable (like the AI), others are not imo, like say the scope of the campaign. There is nothing wrong with a smaller campaign, with more focus, however for these guys there is lots wrong. They always prefer larger scope, and CA has tried to cater for this trend say in the M2 campaign and in ETW. Large scope campaigns tend to over simplify the map in order to represent such huge areas and the end effect is the more factions/more units/non-plausible historically campaign progress.

I can't really say how much NTW improves over ETW because i haven't played the game.

I suspect that through want of oil, the wheel seized up somewhat?

Possibly that or perhaps some of the reviewing sites felt that they overdid it with the eulogies of ETW and wanted to restore some of their credibility after the debacle of the divergeance between reviewer ratings and user ratings on the net. It was very entertaining and satisfying to see that by the way ;)

The best gauge of how good a game is, is to read player experiences, both positive and negative, posted on the forums. Magazine/game site reviews are not worth getting ones knickers in a twist over.

Bingo