moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
Here's what I posted over there.
While the criticisms are accurate, I don't think the score is assessing it on the right criteria. The gameplay of this game is era defining. The steep learning curve is something that will only effect you for the first few hours of the 100s that are typically put into a multiplayer game. After that it's pure gaming bliss.
If a unsatisfying, conventional but completely polished mainstream game warrants an 8, but a completely satisfying and groundbreaking indie with some rough edges also warrants an 8, I don't think you are calibrating things correctly.
"In many ways, the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and their selves to our judgment. We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read. But the bitter truth we critics must face, is that in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is probably more meaningful than our criticism designating it so. But there are times when a critic truly risks something, and that is in the discovery and defense of the new. The world is often unkind to new talent, new creations, the new needs friends." <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JPOoFkrh94" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JPOoFkrh94</a>
When something particularly new and interesting comes along, it's better to overlook the small issues and focus on the big picture.
Agreed, terrible review. There's times when you have to overlook technicalities and acknowledge a game for what it tries to do bravely and with success. Watch another trite and safe triple A game score higher.
i also disagree with the learning curve crap... it's a cop out.
the problem is that most reviewer's absolutely freaking suck at video games, they want everything to be spoonfed for them.
ffs... did SC1 or C&C red alert have a tutorial mode? i played them single player for years before going online, and still basically died in the first 5 minutes of every game. how much of sc2's score is based on having more up to date tutorials? F***, it shouldn't get zero as any single player experience is useless, it's was still hard as nails online.
to me, knocking points off for the 'learning curve' is tantamount to saying "if you're dumb, i would reconsider - because it's tricky to learn".
reviewers need to wake up... no amount of offline tutorials will help you as much as playing against other players.
<!--quoteo(post=2013219:date=Nov 6 2012, 05:02 PM:name=Wilson)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Wilson @ Nov 6 2012, 05:02 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2013219"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Since when did 8/10 become a bad score?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
its not. considering where the game was just a couple months ago. 8 is a very good achievement. And they are getting much higher than that from other reviewers.
fact is expectations are very high wrt to performance, visual & gameplay polish & easiness to get into. All areas where the game currently has gaps.
the parts that are well executed really lift the score up & cause the shortcomings to be overlooked in my opinion.
What a terribly bias review. Where the hell are these load times coming from? Are they reviewing games on old 7600RPM HDD's? It sounds like just lost a few rounds and some beta player was pub stomping him so he got mad.
6 might be a little harsh, but i'm not that surprised. gamespot is very punitive for performance & any rough spots in a game. deus ex = 8.2
<a href="http://www.gamespot.com/reviews.html?platform=5&category=&type=reviews&mode=all&sort=score&sortdir=asc&page=49" target="_blank">list of other gamespot 6.0 games</a>
First of all, did the reviewer take those screenshots himself? Well, congratulations Eric! You get an E- for the effort.
"Despite the relatively plain textures, maps are complex affairs, with many redundant pathways and switchbacks." - In what way, shape and form do textures have anything to do with architecture anyway?
"Aliens require 'creep' (the green stuff) [...]" - Ehrr, no. It's called Infestation.
The reviewer seem to have had long load times, which is unfortunate, but he failed to mention that not everyone have those slow load times (I don't) and that it's also being worked on by the devs. If he went into details on how long loading took for him, why not mention everything? Insufficient research? Most likely.
"There's promise galore here, but Natural Selection 2's foibles simply keep it from fully realizing its promise in the end." - That's a lousy end to a lousy article. As if NS2's two hundred and twenty seventh build (v1.0) is somehow the endpoint of NS2's development (actually 228th).
He was right about the lack of tutorials, in-game-help and such. A dedicated player will get by that though (and it can be fun to learn a game, when everything is new and exciting), and it shouldn't deduct so much from the score as it probably did. NS2 received the same score as Medal of Honor: Warfighter, a type of game that have been made hundreds upon hundreds of times before, and this time in a sensationally bad way if you are to believe all the critics (not just GameSpot's).
Gamespot is pretty spotty for their reviews. I mean, league of Legends got a 6.0, Mount and Blade, Bully.
It's not a fair review. None the less, I feel this is fair that NS2 got 1 review like this when I look in context of the reviews NS2 has gotten that were frankly nicer than they should have been. There are so many bugs and niggling problems with NS2. It's a good game, that's for sure, and off the charts with potential, but it's just not quite there yet. For many reasons it's not as fun as NS was (and that's ignoring bunny hopping). I can't tell how many times I've ragequit the game because the aliens rushed main base powernode, I was the only marine with the presence of mind to lay mines, and the commander didn't know how to beacon fast enough. Or the hive gets axed down because no one on the team knows how to check the map for alerts, and I'm on the other side of the map (God knows I can't teleport).
NS2 IS fun, especially when you're not running into a late game marine turtle, or a 5 minute onos... But the fact that those things happen weaken the experience and make it only tolerable in moderate bouts. It's not the addictive experience from NS1. Especially with the bugs and issues that come up from time to time.
By all means, I'm not going to STOP playing NS2. But it definitely has it's problems... And I can't really blame a reviewer from seeing it like that.
This is one of those situations in which I feel like a loyal dog whose master has been harmed. I've tied my rage hand behind my back and am now proceeding to do battle in the comments with my argument hand.
Anyone who wants to join me in there would be very welcome. We can start a fire, toast some marshmallows, and chant slogans.
EDIT: To clarify, he could have given us a 6.0 and whatever. Argue for it. But he didn't. He committed factual inaccuracies, could not even get the price of the game right, and just generally makes what is supposed to be objective analysis sound like the editorial section.
<!--quoteo(post=2014569:date=Nov 8 2012, 08:48 AM:name=Garfu)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Garfu @ Nov 8 2012, 08:48 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2014569"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Normally I'd say to ignore these troll reviewers, but that guys a dip######. Go for it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=2014573:date=Nov 7 2012, 05:49 PM:name=Strayan (NS2HD))--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Strayan (NS2HD) @ Nov 7 2012, 05:49 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2014573"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That's my kind of attitude.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> You guys should try to contact gamespot about it. If he can't get facts right that is serious reason for complaint.
Is there any way to contact Gamespot and have them edit the review for at least the basic factual inaccuracies? I know that it's not real "journalism" but it seems like there should be some system in-place to correct outright lies.
NolSinklerOn the ClorfJoin Date: 2004-02-15Member: 26560Members, Constellation
Despite the incompetent review, the man makes a point. The game <i>is</i> hard for newcomers to pick up and play. Even our worst critics can better us somehow.
<!--quoteo(post=2014645:date=Nov 8 2012, 12:40 AM:name=NolSinkler)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NolSinkler @ Nov 8 2012, 12:40 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2014645"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Despite the incompetent review, the man makes a point. The game <i>is</i> hard for newcomers to pick up and play. Even our worst critics can better us somehow.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> They would make us better if they are right, but giving it 6 out of 10 for rough edges and its hard to learn = PURE 100% BULL###### These are the same guys who would give COD a 9 out of 10. If your interested in what else I had to say ( excuse the wall of text ) look in the comments for user name rammaj
Well I was expecting a low score from a main gaming site reviewer who just didn't get it. This guy fits the bill...and it doesn't surprise me it comes from gamespot...that site is awful when it comes to PC. All their reviewers are console ######s.
But seriously this is one of the worst reviews I've read. The 'grinding to learn the game' comment is a classic. Someone should tell all the MOBA players thats what they are doing. Its only s grind if its dull and repetitive...maybe he found the game to be dull and repetitive forgot to write that in...
<!--quoteo(post=2014499:date=Nov 8 2012, 12:48 AM:name=Shaker)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Shaker @ Nov 8 2012, 12:48 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2014499"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What a terribly bias review. Where the hell are these load times coming from? Are they reviewing games on old 7600RPM HDD's? It sounds like just lost a few rounds and some beta player was pub stomping him so he got mad.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's obvious he didn't play more than 6 matches since he would know the loading times drop to less than 20 seconds after loading the map once.
<!--quoteo(post=2014655:date=Nov 7 2012, 03:49 PM:name=Jibrail)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jibrail @ Nov 7 2012, 03:49 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2014655"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->They would make us better if they are right, but giving it 6 out of 10 for rough edges and its hard to learn = PURE 100% BULL###### These are the same guys who would give COD a 9 out of 10. If your interested in what else I had to say ( excuse the wall of text ) look in the comments for user name rammaj<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
By gamespot's "it's too hard" logic Starcraft 2 should get a 4.
Classic gaming journalism is pretty much dead anyway, youtube reviewers such as TB and sites like giantbomb and RPS that feature actual content are leading the pack.
<!--quoteo(post=2014556:date=Nov 7 2012, 02:40 PM:name=Swiftspear)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Swiftspear @ Nov 7 2012, 02:40 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2014556"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Gamespot is pretty spotty for their reviews. I mean, league of Legends got a 6.0, Mount and Blade, Bully.
It's not a fair review. None the less, I feel this is fair that NS2 got 1 review like this when I look in context of the reviews NS2 has gotten that were frankly nicer than they should have been. There are so many bugs and niggling problems with NS2. It's a good game, that's for sure, and off the charts with potential, but it's just not quite there yet. For many reasons it's not as fun as NS was (and that's ignoring bunny hopping). I can't tell how many times I've ragequit the game because the aliens rushed main base powernode, I was the only marine with the presence of mind to lay mines, and the commander didn't know how to beacon fast enough. Or the hive gets axed down because no one on the team knows how to check the map for alerts, and I'm on the other side of the map (God knows I can't teleport).
NS2 IS fun, especially when you're not running into a late game marine turtle, or a 5 minute onos... But the fact that those things happen weaken the experience and make it only tolerable in moderate bouts. It's not the addictive experience from NS1. Especially with the bugs and issues that come up from time to time.
By all means, I'm not going to STOP playing NS2. But it definitely has it's problems... And I can't really blame a reviewer from seeing it like that.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=2014686:date=Nov 8 2012, 02:15 AM:name=extollo)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (extollo @ Nov 8 2012, 02:15 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2014686"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->they put it in the alpha protocol, epic mickey, lynch & kane bucket. how harsh do you want? :o
disappointment for uwe. gamespot is important, but i dont think they hold as much sway with uwe's target base as they did in years past.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So don't worry too much UWE, they're bleeding users and most importantly good reviewers and are quickly becoming irrelevant.
At least IGN gave a good score, they're the ones usually slipping up on decent games just because they're not AAA+ ultra hyped titles that pay them off.
Regardless of whether 6/10 is adequate or not - his criticism is mostly spot on. Graphics are a little dated, loading times are long, there is little in-game help for newbies, you need a decent commander, the game is still a bit rough... it's all true. I much prefer reading a review with valid criticism, instead of the unrealistcally hyped up 9/10, 10/10 reviews.
<!--quoteo(post=2014534:date=Nov 7 2012, 11:20 PM:name=Namm)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Namm @ Nov 7 2012, 11:20 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2014534"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->First of all, did the reviewer take those screenshots himself?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Any respectable reviewer uses self-made screenshots. But yes, he could have taken some shots from actual combat action and not just empty hallways.
His reasons are wrong, but I think his score is right... but if the reasons are wrong, what's the point? I would give NS2 a 'C'. Not C+, and maybe a bit too close to C-, but the point is it's very, very average.
Half the game - the aliens - doesn't show any imagination or innovation, and has tons of totally unused potential. Except for the Khamm, the aliens are just vague clones of what NS1 had. It's been 10 years, and the only new feature of the alien players is a totally useless Fade ability. Seriously? Do you not understand just how outrageously creative you can be with the alien concept? Overall, the aliens *lost* more features than they gained. We're missing at LEAST three upgrade abilities. Gorge lost buildings and gained useless pres dumps, and lost webs as well. Fade lost Metabolize, the one time he could actually use it, and acid rocket, which was pretty important for marine base-breaking. Onos lost devour, and charge was severely neutered. Even Xenocide now punishes the player more than it punishes the enemies you use it against. Hive fast-travel is gone. Hivesight is almost completely missing with NO reasonable explanation as to why.
The other half of the game - the marines - is dumbed-down, streamlined, shallow, and as a result, dull. It doesn't take any risks with the players, and all you need to succeed is a child's level of understand of group tactics, the ability to play any other FPS game, and a rudimentary understanding of the game concepts. And the ability to hold 'shift' and 'e'. Tons of design in the game was obviously deliberately done to pander to marine enjoyment over alien. Parasite, map lighting, the cost of pres items, full damage while blinking, shotguns with no damage reduction against armor / structures, infinitely recoverable guns, armories that restore a marine to full power in seconds, faster respawns, free upgrades they get straight from the IP... I honestly don't even understand how the aliens EVER win when you put up the list of massive dumbing-down that occurred just for the benefit of marine players. Aliens lose a research structure (which takes about three seconds to kill with a shotgun) and they have to re-research the upgrades it had. Marines got sprint for absolutely no god damn good reason.
Then there's the 'dark matter' of the game - the spooky ether that it exists in that holds it all together. The power node system for marines is entirely lacking and imposes no serious limits to the marine commander's reach. He can still drop structures and they can still be built alongside the power node to save time, he can scan, drop assistance, all of this anywhere. On the other hand, aliens need to tres dump to expand anywhere, and they can't use any of their abilities anywhere except on the infestation, which is easily negated by any marine willing to spend two seconds chopping at it with an axe. Maps are confusing and lack important visual setpieces to help people orient themselves more quickly. Much of the design just lacks polish, like environmental effects and atmospheric improvements - with a few exceptions, every room is basically just a sterile, static chamber to do combat in, with lights that might turn red sometimes.
The marine team has nothing but a giant pile of hard counters, and I can't think of a single hard counter the aliens have, except maybe the actual presence of infestation on building placement. The even still have the siege cannon - now in mobile format - and it's probably the single most superfluous item I've ever seen in a video game. A siege breaker? For what, the massive wall of three hydras you can't just axe to death? Why not just use the OTHER siege cannon - not the grenade launcher - but the handheld siege cannon that nukes structures for hundreds of points of damage per shot? Yeah, the shotgun, that one.
Part of the problem is this obsession with minimalism, and this faulty belief that less is always more. We don't have any new lifeforms because it was easy to try to crowbar in an excuse about how 'new lifeform x would invalidate lifeform y'. We don't even have the HMG anymore because it was too much like an LMG and they didn't want to replace anything. There is a big difference between have ONE gun, and having 84 guns like BF3. People like choices. Less is more when you do it behind the scenes and the player can't tell you're doing it. It is NOT more when it's so painfully obvious that aliens can use a 6th lifeform, but didn't get one. You will never sell more copies of a game by showing off your lack of features. Choices leads to variety, variety leads to replayability, replayability leads to enjoyment, and enjoyment leads to sales.
The other problem I see is this desire to simply make 'NS1.5'. Many concepts were tried in beta, most were thrown out instead of turned into workable solutions, and trying to pander too much to the starry-eyed nostalgic NS1 vets. Sequels are supposed to build up a new game, not just redo the previous one with some better graphics, except worse because you removed a ton of stuff and screwed the design so badly.
The final cherry is just the baffling amount of bull###### in this game. A jetpack and shotgun is arguably the most powerful marine weapon. It costs a measly 30 pres. Flayra didn't want "hidden bonuses" but left in the Arms Lab upgrades which does nothing but give hidden bonuses to every marine, everywhere, at no cost to themselves. We hear that nothing in the game should completely counter another thing, except the marines have a structure that completely negates a full 33% of the alien tech tree. And it does it anywhere on the map the commander wants it to.
When you think of the military, you think of organization, tactical efficiency, and squadwork. You get squads in Battlefield to help you work together. You get squads in PS2 to help you work together. In NS2, marines have almost no need of teamwork except to multiply firepower and stop someone from getting their ass bit off while building.
When you think of violent, killer aliens infesting things in space, stalking humans and killing them, you think of the Predator and Aliens. They're efficient killers, soloists, and fiercly independent and vicious. In NS2, aliens are entirely dependent on this bizarre "class-balance" system, like it's Battlefield, where I need the engineer to shoot tanks, the assault to revive, the sniper to... um... and the support to hand out ammo and suppress. You know, THINGS HUMANS DO IN MILITARY GAMES. Why are the ALIENS the ones that require all kinds of gimmicky buffs to each other, spread across several classes? Why do the ALIENS need the combined arms and teamwork?
When you think of humans going into battle against space bugs, you think of Ripley, Hicks, Johnny Rico... we're humans. We empathize with humans. The TSA is not the Red Army. Why are HUMANS considered disposable and easy to replace (evidenced by their lack of downtime, cheap things they can buy with pres, recoverable weapons, and the effectiveness of the vanilla marine with Arms Lab upgrades)? These people have lives, families... every space horror movie revolves around a small group of humans desperately fighting for survival. We didn't enjoy Aliens because there were waves of Colonial Marines pouring in to replace those that were lost.
<a href="http://www.ratemoviescenes.com/index.php?mode=news&id=12" target="_blank">Wasn't this the inspiration for Natural-Selection?</a> I was going to post the air vent scene from Alien, but I can't seem to find a clip of it.
When you think of aliens attacking humans... screw it, you know exactly where this is going, because you know exactly what I'm talking about. Instead, aliens are punished with long deaths. They're punished with useless spawn units. They're punished with expensive lifeforms of questionable use.
This is just completely ###### backwards and I just don't get it. It honestly feels more like the ALIENS are the ones who are being invaded, and I should sympathize with them. They're so totally outclassed by the marines I don't even know how they ever win - or is the Onos just that much of a crutch?
NS2 is a good looking game, and is well done for such a small indy team, but that doesn't get you a free pass. Given what we lost from NS1, what we failed to gain in NS2, and a continuation of the questionable game direction that started in NS2.0 and only got worse in NS3.0 (where marines became soloist monsters)... this is just very, very average. It doesn't do enough with what it has, it cut way too much and didn't take enough risks in some attempt to appeal to what is a very small minority of nostalgic NS1 competitive vets, that it just ended up an extremely lackluster game overall.
What I feel like I got with NS2 was a steak dinner that had a great picture on the front of the menu, and I got a piece of meat cooked well, without any potatoes or vegetables along with it. It's the bare minimum of what was needed to be considered a steak dinner.
The only question is, is it too late to send it back to the kitchen to get them to do it right?
Comments
While the criticisms are accurate, I don't think the score is assessing it on the right criteria. The gameplay of this game is era defining. The steep learning curve is something that will only effect you for the first few hours of the 100s that are typically put into a multiplayer game. After that it's pure gaming bliss.
If a unsatisfying, conventional but completely polished mainstream game warrants an 8, but a completely satisfying and groundbreaking indie with some rough edges also warrants an 8, I don't think you are calibrating things correctly.
"In many ways, the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and their selves to our judgment. We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read. But the bitter truth we critics must face, is that in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is probably more meaningful than our criticism designating it so. But there are times when a critic truly risks something, and that is in the discovery and defense of the new. The world is often unkind to new talent, new creations, the new needs friends."
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JPOoFkrh94" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JPOoFkrh94</a>
When something particularly new and interesting comes along, it's better to overlook the small issues and focus on the big picture.
the problem is that most reviewer's absolutely freaking suck at video games, they want everything to be spoonfed for them.
ffs... did SC1 or C&C red alert have a tutorial mode? i played them single player for years before going online, and still basically died in the first 5 minutes of every game. how much of sc2's score is based on having more up to date tutorials? F***, it shouldn't get zero as any single player experience is useless, it's was still hard as nails online.
to me, knocking points off for the 'learning curve' is tantamount to saying "if you're dumb, i would reconsider - because it's tricky to learn".
reviewers need to wake up... no amount of offline tutorials will help you as much as playing against other players.
its not. considering where the game was just a couple months ago. 8 is a very good achievement. And they are getting much higher than that from other reviewers.
fact is expectations are very high wrt to performance, visual & gameplay polish & easiness to get into. All areas where the game currently has gaps.
the parts that are well executed really lift the score up & cause the shortcomings to be overlooked in my opinion.
<a href="http://www.fz.se/artiklar/recension/20121105/natural-selection-2" target="_blank">http://www.fz.se/artiklar/recension/201211...ral-selection-2</a>
They gave it a 4/5 !
+
Pure multiplayer gaming fun
Rare well made genre mix
Very polished into the closest detail
-
Marines are boring
Very steep learning curve
Google translate of the review:
<a href="http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=sv&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fz.se%2Fartiklar%2Frecension%2F20121105%2Fnatural-selection-2&act=url" target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=s...n-2&act=url</a>
<a href="http://www.gamespot.com/natural-selection-2/reviews/natural-selection-2-review-6399575/" target="_blank">http://www.gamespot.com/natural-selection-...review-6399575/</a>
unleash rage! ;P
<a href="http://www.gamespot.com/natural-selection-2/reviews/natural-selection-2-review-6399575/" target="_blank">http://www.gamespot.com/natural-selection-...review-6399575/</a>
unleash rage! ;P<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
6 might be a little harsh, but i'm not that surprised. gamespot is very punitive for performance & any rough spots in a game. deus ex = 8.2
<a href="http://www.gamespot.com/reviews.html?platform=5&category=&type=reviews&mode=all&sort=score&sortdir=asc&page=49" target="_blank">list of other gamespot 6.0 games</a>
First of all, did the reviewer take those screenshots himself? Well, congratulations Eric! You get an E- for the effort.
"Despite the relatively plain textures, maps are complex affairs, with many redundant pathways and switchbacks."
- In what way, shape and form do textures have anything to do with architecture anyway?
"Aliens require 'creep' (the green stuff) [...]"
- Ehrr, no. It's called Infestation.
The reviewer seem to have had long load times, which is unfortunate, but he failed to mention that not everyone have those slow load times (I don't) and that it's also being worked on by the devs. If he went into details on how long loading took for him, why not mention everything? Insufficient research? Most likely.
"There's promise galore here, but Natural Selection 2's foibles simply keep it from fully realizing its promise in the end."
- That's a lousy end to a lousy article. As if NS2's two hundred and twenty seventh build (v1.0) is somehow the endpoint of NS2's development (actually 228th).
He was right about the lack of tutorials, in-game-help and such. A dedicated player will get by that though (and it can be fun to learn a game, when everything is new and exciting), and it shouldn't deduct so much from the score as it probably did. NS2 received the same score as Medal of Honor: Warfighter, a type of game that have been made hundreds upon hundreds of times before, and this time in a sensationally bad way if you are to believe all the critics (not just GameSpot's).
It's not a fair review. None the less, I feel this is fair that NS2 got 1 review like this when I look in context of the reviews NS2 has gotten that were frankly nicer than they should have been. There are so many bugs and niggling problems with NS2. It's a good game, that's for sure, and off the charts with potential, but it's just not quite there yet. For many reasons it's not as fun as NS was (and that's ignoring bunny hopping). I can't tell how many times I've ragequit the game because the aliens rushed main base powernode, I was the only marine with the presence of mind to lay mines, and the commander didn't know how to beacon fast enough. Or the hive gets axed down because no one on the team knows how to check the map for alerts, and I'm on the other side of the map (God knows I can't teleport).
NS2 IS fun, especially when you're not running into a late game marine turtle, or a 5 minute onos... But the fact that those things happen weaken the experience and make it only tolerable in moderate bouts. It's not the addictive experience from NS1. Especially with the bugs and issues that come up from time to time.
By all means, I'm not going to STOP playing NS2. But it definitely has it's problems... And I can't really blame a reviewer from seeing it like that.
<a href="http://www.gamespot.com/natural-selection-2/reviews/natural-selection-2-review-6399575/" target="_blank">http://www.gamespot.com/natural-selection-...review-6399575/</a>
unleash rage! ;P<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is one of those situations in which I feel like a loyal dog whose master has been harmed. I've tied my rage hand behind my back and am now proceeding to do battle in the comments with my argument hand.
Anyone who wants to join me in there would be very welcome. We can start a fire, toast some marshmallows, and chant slogans.
EDIT: To clarify, he could have given us a 6.0 and whatever. Argue for it. But he didn't. He committed factual inaccuracies, could not even get the price of the game right, and just generally makes what is supposed to be objective analysis sound like the editorial section.
That's my kind of attitude.
You guys should try to contact gamespot about it. If he can't get facts right that is serious reason for complaint.
EDIT:
Just looked up this guy and other stuff he had done exactly the same thing, devs and fans are like WTF did he actully play the game??
Derp.
They would make us better if they are right, but giving it 6 out of 10 for rough edges and its hard to learn = PURE 100% BULL######
These are the same guys who would give COD a 9 out of 10.
If your interested in what else I had to say ( excuse the wall of text ) look in the comments for user name rammaj
But seriously this is one of the worst reviews I've read. The 'grinding to learn the game' comment is a classic. Someone should tell all the MOBA players thats what they are doing. Its only s grind if its dull and repetitive...maybe he found the game to be dull and repetitive forgot to write that in...
It's obvious he didn't play more than 6 matches since he would know the loading times drop to less than 20 seconds after loading the map once.
These are the same guys who would give COD a 9 out of 10.
If your interested in what else I had to say ( excuse the wall of text ) look in the comments for user name rammaj<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think 6/10 is kind of generous :o
Classic gaming journalism is pretty much dead anyway, youtube reviewers such as TB and sites like giantbomb and RPS that feature actual content are leading the pack.
It's not a fair review. None the less, I feel this is fair that NS2 got 1 review like this when I look in context of the reviews NS2 has gotten that were frankly nicer than they should have been. There are so many bugs and niggling problems with NS2. It's a good game, that's for sure, and off the charts with potential, but it's just not quite there yet. For many reasons it's not as fun as NS was (and that's ignoring bunny hopping). I can't tell how many times I've ragequit the game because the aliens rushed main base powernode, I was the only marine with the presence of mind to lay mines, and the commander didn't know how to beacon fast enough. Or the hive gets axed down because no one on the team knows how to check the map for alerts, and I'm on the other side of the map (God knows I can't teleport).
NS2 IS fun, especially when you're not running into a late game marine turtle, or a 5 minute onos... But the fact that those things happen weaken the experience and make it only tolerable in moderate bouts. It's not the addictive experience from NS1. Especially with the bugs and issues that come up from time to time.
By all means, I'm not going to STOP playing NS2. But it definitely has it's problems... And I can't really blame a reviewer from seeing it like that.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
yeah can we remove power nodes and creep already?
they put it in the alpha protocol, epic mickey, lynch & kane bucket. how harsh do you want? :o
disappointment for uwe. gamespot is important, but i dont think they hold as much sway with uwe's target base as they did in years past.
disappointment for uwe. gamespot is important, but i dont think they hold as much sway with uwe's target base as they did in years past.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, not so much.
<img src="http://i.imgur.com/MIFdz.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" />
So don't worry too much UWE, they're bleeding users and most importantly good reviewers and are quickly becoming irrelevant.
At least IGN gave a good score, they're the ones usually slipping up on decent games just because they're not AAA+ ultra hyped titles that pay them off.
Graphics are a little dated, loading times are long, there is little in-game help for newbies, you need a decent commander, the game is still a bit rough... it's all true. I much prefer reading a review with valid criticism, instead of the unrealistcally hyped up 9/10, 10/10 reviews.
<!--quoteo(post=2014534:date=Nov 7 2012, 11:20 PM:name=Namm)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Namm @ Nov 7 2012, 11:20 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2014534"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->First of all, did the reviewer take those screenshots himself?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Any respectable reviewer uses self-made screenshots. But yes, he could have taken some shots from actual combat action and not just empty hallways.
Half the game - the aliens - doesn't show any imagination or innovation, and has tons of totally unused potential. Except for the Khamm, the aliens are just vague clones of what NS1 had. It's been 10 years, and the only new feature of the alien players is a totally useless Fade ability. Seriously? Do you not understand just how outrageously creative you can be with the alien concept? Overall, the aliens *lost* more features than they gained. We're missing at LEAST three upgrade abilities. Gorge lost buildings and gained useless pres dumps, and lost webs as well. Fade lost Metabolize, the one time he could actually use it, and acid rocket, which was pretty important for marine base-breaking. Onos lost devour, and charge was severely neutered. Even Xenocide now punishes the player more than it punishes the enemies you use it against. Hive fast-travel is gone. Hivesight is almost completely missing with NO reasonable explanation as to why.
The other half of the game - the marines - is dumbed-down, streamlined, shallow, and as a result, dull. It doesn't take any risks with the players, and all you need to succeed is a child's level of understand of group tactics, the ability to play any other FPS game, and a rudimentary understanding of the game concepts. And the ability to hold 'shift' and 'e'. Tons of design in the game was obviously deliberately done to pander to marine enjoyment over alien. Parasite, map lighting, the cost of pres items, full damage while blinking, shotguns with no damage reduction against armor / structures, infinitely recoverable guns, armories that restore a marine to full power in seconds, faster respawns, free upgrades they get straight from the IP... I honestly don't even understand how the aliens EVER win when you put up the list of massive dumbing-down that occurred just for the benefit of marine players. Aliens lose a research structure (which takes about three seconds to kill with a shotgun) and they have to re-research the upgrades it had. Marines got sprint for absolutely no god damn good reason.
Then there's the 'dark matter' of the game - the spooky ether that it exists in that holds it all together. The power node system for marines is entirely lacking and imposes no serious limits to the marine commander's reach. He can still drop structures and they can still be built alongside the power node to save time, he can scan, drop assistance, all of this anywhere. On the other hand, aliens need to tres dump to expand anywhere, and they can't use any of their abilities anywhere except on the infestation, which is easily negated by any marine willing to spend two seconds chopping at it with an axe. Maps are confusing and lack important visual setpieces to help people orient themselves more quickly. Much of the design just lacks polish, like environmental effects and atmospheric improvements - with a few exceptions, every room is basically just a sterile, static chamber to do combat in, with lights that might turn red sometimes.
The marine team has nothing but a giant pile of hard counters, and I can't think of a single hard counter the aliens have, except maybe the actual presence of infestation on building placement. The even still have the siege cannon - now in mobile format - and it's probably the single most superfluous item I've ever seen in a video game. A siege breaker? For what, the massive wall of three hydras you can't just axe to death? Why not just use the OTHER siege cannon - not the grenade launcher - but the handheld siege cannon that nukes structures for hundreds of points of damage per shot? Yeah, the shotgun, that one.
Part of the problem is this obsession with minimalism, and this faulty belief that less is always more. We don't have any new lifeforms because it was easy to try to crowbar in an excuse about how 'new lifeform x would invalidate lifeform y'. We don't even have the HMG anymore because it was too much like an LMG and they didn't want to replace anything. There is a big difference between have ONE gun, and having 84 guns like BF3. People like choices. Less is more when you do it behind the scenes and the player can't tell you're doing it. It is NOT more when it's so painfully obvious that aliens can use a 6th lifeform, but didn't get one. You will never sell more copies of a game by showing off your lack of features. Choices leads to variety, variety leads to replayability, replayability leads to enjoyment, and enjoyment leads to sales.
The other problem I see is this desire to simply make 'NS1.5'. Many concepts were tried in beta, most were thrown out instead of turned into workable solutions, and trying to pander too much to the starry-eyed nostalgic NS1 vets. Sequels are supposed to build up a new game, not just redo the previous one with some better graphics, except worse because you removed a ton of stuff and screwed the design so badly.
The final cherry is just the baffling amount of bull###### in this game. A jetpack and shotgun is arguably the most powerful marine weapon. It costs a measly 30 pres. Flayra didn't want "hidden bonuses" but left in the Arms Lab upgrades which does nothing but give hidden bonuses to every marine, everywhere, at no cost to themselves. We hear that nothing in the game should completely counter another thing, except the marines have a structure that completely negates a full 33% of the alien tech tree. And it does it anywhere on the map the commander wants it to.
When you think of the military, you think of organization, tactical efficiency, and squadwork. You get squads in Battlefield to help you work together. You get squads in PS2 to help you work together. In NS2, marines have almost no need of teamwork except to multiply firepower and stop someone from getting their ass bit off while building.
When you think of violent, killer aliens infesting things in space, stalking humans and killing them, you think of the Predator and Aliens. They're efficient killers, soloists, and fiercly independent and vicious. In NS2, aliens are entirely dependent on this bizarre "class-balance" system, like it's Battlefield, where I need the engineer to shoot tanks, the assault to revive, the sniper to... um... and the support to hand out ammo and suppress. You know, THINGS HUMANS DO IN MILITARY GAMES. Why are the ALIENS the ones that require all kinds of gimmicky buffs to each other, spread across several classes? Why do the ALIENS need the combined arms and teamwork?
When you think of humans going into battle against space bugs, you think of Ripley, Hicks, Johnny Rico... we're humans. We empathize with humans. The TSA is not the Red Army. Why are HUMANS considered disposable and easy to replace (evidenced by their lack of downtime, cheap things they can buy with pres, recoverable weapons, and the effectiveness of the vanilla marine with Arms Lab upgrades)? These people have lives, families... every space horror movie revolves around a small group of humans desperately fighting for survival. We didn't enjoy Aliens because there were waves of Colonial Marines pouring in to replace those that were lost.
<a href="http://www.ratemoviescenes.com/index.php?mode=news&id=12" target="_blank">Wasn't this the inspiration for Natural-Selection?</a> I was going to post the air vent scene from Alien, but I can't seem to find a clip of it.
When you think of aliens attacking humans... screw it, you know exactly where this is going, because you know exactly what I'm talking about. Instead, aliens are punished with long deaths. They're punished with useless spawn units. They're punished with expensive lifeforms of questionable use.
This is just completely ###### backwards and I just don't get it. It honestly feels more like the ALIENS are the ones who are being invaded, and I should sympathize with them. They're so totally outclassed by the marines I don't even know how they ever win - or is the Onos just that much of a crutch?
NS2 is a good looking game, and is well done for such a small indy team, but that doesn't get you a free pass. Given what we lost from NS1, what we failed to gain in NS2, and a continuation of the questionable game direction that started in NS2.0 and only got worse in NS3.0 (where marines became soloist monsters)... this is just very, very average. It doesn't do enough with what it has, it cut way too much and didn't take enough risks in some attempt to appeal to what is a very small minority of nostalgic NS1 competitive vets, that it just ended up an extremely lackluster game overall.
What I feel like I got with NS2 was a steak dinner that had a great picture on the front of the menu, and I got a piece of meat cooked well, without any potatoes or vegetables along with it. It's the bare minimum of what was needed to be considered a steak dinner.
The only question is, is it too late to send it back to the kitchen to get them to do it right?
And that's all I've got to say about that.