And metacritic have now published the overall review score as 77, based on four critic scores: 91, 90, 80, 60
User score is 9.3
The two lowest scores come from US sites...
Another reminder, post your user review of NS2 here <a href="http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/natural-selection-2" target="_blank">http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/natural-selection-2</a>
registering with metacritic only takes a moment, you don't even have to write a review you can straightforwardly select a number.
<a href="http://www.pcworld.com/article/2013308/review-get-extraterrestrial-in-natural-selection-2.html" target="_blank">PC World</a> has a great review.
I don't understand the hate on alien comm in page 1/2. This gives those folks who genuinely enjoy playing Commander no reason to favour one team. I play comm on both Marine and Alien very frequently and funnily enough, I prefer alien! It's a lot more fluid and less team-reliant, meaning if your team is good, your team will be great, whereas playing as a Marine, if your team is good, then you can only play comm to the extent your teams skill allows you to.
Can someone enlighten me why are some reviews praising the balance in particular? As far as I've understood, it isn't exactly quite all the way there yet. I can see a million things you can praise NS2, but the refined gameplay structure and balance aren't those, not at least for now.
Also, the examiner comparing the competitive side to Star Craft while we've got a handful of teams trying to break the onos strats is quite ridiculous. There's definitely potential for a good comp game, but NS2 isn't the Mona Lisa of comp play right now, not even close.
I'd much rather have a 8/10 and praise for the things where it's deserved than 9/10 for reasons that just don't make sense.
AsranielJoin Date: 2002-06-03Member: 724Members, Playtest Lead, Forum Moderators, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Shadow, Subnautica Playtester, Retired Community Developer
edited November 2012
<!--quoteo(post=2015272:date=Nov 8 2012, 02:30 PM:name=Bacillus)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Bacillus @ Nov 8 2012, 02:30 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2015272"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Can someone enlighten me why are some reviews praising the balance in particular? As far as I've understood, it isn't exactly quite all the way there yet. I can see a million things you can praise NS2, but the refined gameplay structure and balance aren't those, not at least for now.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
To be fair, win loss ratio is nearly 50/50. Now, a perfectly balanced game can be very dull, but thats a totally different question. The statement that ns2 is balanced is not wrong in itself (and really, if you play pub you can often see that 50/50 win loss ratio). The discussion about abusive strategies is a different one, but as both teams have them at the moment, it ends up with 50/50
<!--quoteo(post=2015180:date=Nov 8 2012, 10:49 AM:name=Onii-chan)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Onii-chan @ Nov 8 2012, 10:49 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2015180"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I agree that the numbered system is way flawed, especially the way it's used by the sham that is "gaming journalism". A 5 star system would be much more flexible and a lot of sites are starting to switch to it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> That's a fallacy. A 5 star system is exactly as flexible as a 10 point system (or any other point system). If you compare 5 star ratings with 10 point ones, then 5 stars = 10 points, 2,5 stars = 5 points and so on. As you can see the systems are equivalent in their meaning, only the scale is different.
<!--quoteo(post=2015272:date=Nov 8 2012, 12:30 PM:name=Bacillus)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Bacillus @ Nov 8 2012, 12:30 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2015272"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Can someone enlighten me why are some reviews praising the balance in particular? As far as I've understood, it isn't exactly quite all the way there yet. I can see a million things you can praise NS2, but the refined gameplay structure and balance aren't those, not at least for now.
Also, the examiner comparing the competitive side to Star Craft while we've got a handful of teams trying to break the onos strats is quite ridiculous. There's definitely potential for a good comp game, but NS2 isn't the Mona Lisa of comp play right now, not even close.
I'd much rather have a 8/10 and praise for the things where it's deserved than 9/10 for reasons that just don't make sense.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, the reviews are generally quite superficial, it doesn't seems like the guys put a lot of time or though into it. I wouldn't take what they say very seriously. Modern journalism basically.
Who takes the ###### game reviews seriously anyways. I always watch a gameplay video on youtube. That almost always is enough to see if its crap or not.
Game reviews are a gimmick imo. Some self appointed gaming expert who slaps together a <u><b>shallow</b></u> review after a couple of hours of play & reading up.
<!--quoteo(post=2015293:date=Nov 8 2012, 01:55 PM:name=Raza.)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Raza. @ Nov 8 2012, 01:55 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2015293"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That's a fallacy. A 5 star system is exactly as flexible as a 10 point system (or any other point system). If you compare 5 star ratings with 10 point ones, then 5 stars = 10 points, 2,5 stars = 5 points and so on. As you can see the systems are equivalent in their meaning, only the scale is different.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Except to most reviewers and gamers these days a 5 or lower is the worst score you can get, instead of being an "average" or "serviceable" game. This crushes the scale to basically 5 to 10, it is completely redundant.
A 5 star systems allow for some more grey area and user interpretation instead of gamers being spoonfed numbers like mentally disabled children.
<!--quoteo(post=2015344:date=Nov 8 2012, 08:48 AM:name=Onii-chan)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Onii-chan @ Nov 8 2012, 08:48 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2015344"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Except to most reviewers and gamers these days a 5 or lower is the worst score you can get, instead of being an "average" or "serviceable" game. This crushes the scale to basically 5 to 10, it is completely redundant.
A 5 star systems allow for some more grey area and user interpretation instead of gamers being spoonfed numbers like mentally disabled children.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think a big problem is that shovelware crap gets reviewed. I'd imagine movie reviews would skew a little higher if you had to throw crap direct to DVD movies and Sci-Fi channel movies on the scale.
<!--quoteo(post=2015344:date=Nov 8 2012, 05:48 AM:name=Onii-chan)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Onii-chan @ Nov 8 2012, 05:48 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2015344"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Except to most reviewers and gamers these days a 5 or lower is the worst score you can get, instead of being an "average" or "serviceable" game. This crushes the scale to basically 5 to 10, it is completely redundant.
A 5 star systems allow for some more grey area and user interpretation instead of gamers being spoonfed numbers like mentally disabled children.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> False. Numbers are just bad. The only system that seems to work without seeming ham-fisted is the classic "school grade" of A's, B's, C's, and D's. Abstract enough so that the actual content of the review is required for clarity.
<!--quoteo(post=2015293:date=Nov 8 2012, 02:55 PM:name=Raza.)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Raza. @ Nov 8 2012, 02:55 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2015293"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That's a fallacy. A 5 star system is exactly as flexible as a 10 point system (or any other point system). If you compare 5 star ratings with 10 point ones, then 5 stars = 10 points, 2,5 stars = 5 points and so on. As you can see the systems are equivalent in their meaning, only the scale is different.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Where did you get those half stars from? 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 stars, that's the only reasonable use of a number scale. A 10 point or a 100 point scale is so skewed in peoples minds, a 60/100 will NEVER be equal to three stars. Even though it should still be a GOOD grade.
<!--quoteo(post=2014846:date=Nov 8 2012, 02:22 AM:name=ChickenOfWar)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ChickenOfWar @ Nov 8 2012, 02:22 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2014846"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Temphage I hear a lot of crying from you that this isn't NS1. I also read you contradicting yourself saying things like "NS1 was so much better" and then in the next paragraph saying things like "you guys are trying to make this game too much like NS1".<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> It's pretty simple.
If the gameplay was supposed to be like NS1, they cut too many features and messed up too much strategy.
If the gameplay was supposed to be the next chapter in NS, expanding the franchise as a sequel should, they didn't do enough new and are still tethered to old, dated concepts.
So which is it? Because right now I call it NS1.5. It offers almost nothing new over NS1 except an alien commander, but everything else has been ###### with so much that all the fun of NS1 was cut right out of it.
You know how NS1 went through 1.04 -> 2.0 -> 3.0? That's what this is. This is NS 4.0 more than it is NS2.
<!--quoteo(post=2015330:date=Nov 8 2012, 12:31 PM:name=snaga)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (snaga @ Nov 8 2012, 12:31 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2015330"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Hahahah. Man, I can't believe you managed to be even more clueless than the Gamespot dude.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Natural-Selection is the first game I've seen where the people making accounts to complain about the game are all doing so in a rational manner and logically explaining why they think what they do, and all the fanboys defending it are just complete tools. It's like, totally backwards
<!--quoteo(post=2015497:date=Nov 8 2012, 08:28 AM:name=Temphage)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Temphage @ Nov 8 2012, 08:28 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2015497"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I love how if someone says 'OMG THIS SUX' people get upset and go 'wow, way to list valid reasons and not just a bunch of kneejerk rage'. When I post extremely clear, valid reasons, all the idiots come out and go 'OMG YOU SUX'.
No really, educate me, show me exactly how I'm wrong.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The only thing we can do is wait and see how the game evolves. Hopefully the devs will make the right choices. So far I like the game despite many things I would like to have, ie: hivesight. I know exactly where you're coming from Temphage. It's like you have discovered a gold mine, but lack the proper tools to mine it. It can be frustrating.
•Beautifully balanced asymmetrical FPS gameplay •Works exceedingly well with RTS elements, too •Requires a lot of skill to be good, but rewards dedication •Teamwork held at a premium •Great community, extremely healthy mod support •Great price
Cons:
•Really tough for new players to break in; takes a lot of time •Could use some means of balancing teams and player skills •Occasionally still a bit buggy and suffering from some lag issues
<!--quoteo(post=2015497:date=Nov 8 2012, 06:28 PM:name=Temphage)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Temphage @ Nov 8 2012, 06:28 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2015497"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Natural-Selection is the first game I've seen where the people making accounts to complain about the game are all doing so in a rational manner and logically explaining why they think what they do, and all the fanboys defending it are just complete tools. It's like, totally backwards<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sure, sure...
<!--quoteo(post=2014824:date=Nov 8 2012, 04:59 AM:name=Temphage)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Temphage @ Nov 8 2012, 04:59 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2014824"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What, are you scared that the game isn't quite as good as you thought it was? Why does it matter to you what I think? I've been a member of this community long, long before you, so feel free to ###### right on off.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And here I was thinking the game was very good when in fact it was bad all along! Damn you sir, you have truly bested me with your extremely clear and valid arguments!
You really think that wall of sperg of yours was well thought-out, analytic and constructive criticism deserving of a response, and not whiny, entitled, angry, incoherent rambling mostly about stuff that no one but you even sees as a problem, don't you? Next time try using less hyperbole, elitism, cursing and caps if you want someone to actually take you seriously.
<!--quoteo(post=2015497:date=Nov 8 2012, 06:28 AM:name=Temphage)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Temphage @ Nov 8 2012, 06:28 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2015497"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Natural-Selection is the first game I've seen where the people making accounts to complain about the game are all doing so in a rational manner and logically explaining why they think what they do, and all the fanboys defending it are just complete tools. It's like, totally backwards<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why do you show up in every thread I'm trying to read with nothing useful to input except for never-ending whining and complaining? And you have 1,100+ posts here.
Does anyone know how to block people so you don't see their comments?
<!--quoteo(post=2014715:date=Nov 8 2012, 01:39 AM:name=Temphage)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Temphage @ Nov 8 2012, 01:39 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2014715"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->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?
And that's all I've got to say about that.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't agree with most of what you said; with Aliens winning 8/10 games according to Official statistics, but I agree with the intent behind it.
It's probably not worth obsessing over the GameSpot review. It's too bad it got lumped into the metacritic score, but hopefully some of the other numbered reviews coming out will get included and outweigh it.
I believe certain sites get weighted more depending on certain factors. I assume Gamespot is weighted up there. Too bad GS decided to get one of their 3rd string writers for NS2.
Regardless of his score, the article was terribad "Part of the reason it's difficult is that the game is well balanced" Damn balanced game that makes it difficult for you to win..
<!--quoteo(post=2014789:date=Nov 7 2012, 07:34 PM:name=Temphage)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Temphage @ Nov 7 2012, 07:34 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2014789"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It says something about the game when it has a "50/50 win rate" and yet there hasn't been a single serious thread complaining about marine issues. Nobody is saying 'x is too strong!' and 'y gun is too weak!' and 'z upgrade is too expensive!'
Not a single.
######.
One.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Temphage, are you off your meds again? Seriously, chill out before you blow a vessel.
Also, if you think there aren't any posts about Marine's having some OP #### you obviously have selective memory or just aren't paying attention...
People Complain about:
OP One-Shot-Shotguns OP GL's clearing an entire room of egg's/aliens in one or two clips from one guy. Infinite Ammo/Constantly firing Dual-Exo's Fast Marine Respawns Power Nodes OP Upgrades Weak/Useless Turrets
I mean, you've even posted in most of the threads where people are talking about this stuff so you're either trolling or honestly can't remember twenty minutes ago.
To be fair enough, most of the complaints about Marines revolve around them being OP and the aliens complain they're under welming. I do think it's utter B.S. that aliens need to rely on a gimmicky movement process called 'Wall Jumping' that requires you to be a twitch god whereas as Marines all I need to do is be smart enough to whip out my knife when I hold shift and I outrun default skulks without any upgrades. (Hyperbole. But not much.)
<!--quoteo(post=2015497:date=Nov 8 2012, 11:28 AM:name=Temphage)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Temphage @ Nov 8 2012, 11:28 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2015497"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Natural-Selection is the first game I've seen where the people making accounts to complain about the game are all doing so in a rational manner and logically explaining why they think what they do, and all the fanboys defending it are just complete tools. It's like, totally backwards<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I can see the logic and rationale behind this post.
<!--quoteo(post=2014568:date=Nov 8 2012, 06:47 AM:name=Strayan (NS2HD))--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Strayan (NS2HD) @ Nov 8 2012, 06:47 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2014568"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hugh, as much as it's a bad review, it's very unprofessional to provoke your community to smash the comments because you disagree with it. You could have at least been a bit more subtle about it. If UWE continues to grow as a company, I think you are going to have to take some PR classes or something as to avoid looking amateurish (which at the moment isn't a bad thing) in the future.
<!--quoteo(post=2015784:date=Nov 8 2012, 12:16 PM:name=glimmerman)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (glimmerman @ Nov 8 2012, 12:16 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2015784"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Hugh, as much as it's a bad review, it's very unprofessional to provoke your community to smash the comments because you disagree with it. You could have at least been a bit more subtle about it. If UWE continues to grow as a company, I think you are going to have to take some PR classes or something as to avoid looking amateurish (which at the moment isn't a bad thing) in the future.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have not read the review yet, but if he did commit factual inaccuracies than he needs to be called out on it. You think a corporation would stand by while another company spreads lies about them? lol.
Corporations go after each other's throats all the time. There's nothing amateurish about it.
Comments
User score is 9.3
The two lowest scores come from US sites...
Another reminder, post your user review of NS2 here
<a href="http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/natural-selection-2" target="_blank">http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/natural-selection-2</a>
registering with metacritic only takes a moment, you don't even have to write a review you can straightforwardly select a number.
<a href="http://www.examiner.com/review/natural-selection-2-review" target="_blank">http://www.examiner.com/review/natural-selection-2-review</a>
9/10
Also, the examiner comparing the competitive side to Star Craft while we've got a handful of teams trying to break the onos strats is quite ridiculous. There's definitely potential for a good comp game, but NS2 isn't the Mona Lisa of comp play right now, not even close.
I'd much rather have a 8/10 and praise for the things where it's deserved than 9/10 for reasons that just don't make sense.
To be fair, win loss ratio is nearly 50/50. Now, a perfectly balanced game can be very dull, but thats a totally different question. The statement that ns2 is balanced is not wrong in itself (and really, if you play pub you can often see that 50/50 win loss ratio). The discussion about abusive strategies is a different one, but as both teams have them at the moment, it ends up with 50/50
A 5 star system would be much more flexible and a lot of sites are starting to switch to it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's a fallacy. A 5 star system is exactly as flexible as a 10 point system (or any other point system).
If you compare 5 star ratings with 10 point ones, then 5 stars = 10 points, 2,5 stars = 5 points and so on.
As you can see the systems are equivalent in their meaning, only the scale is different.
Hahahah. Man, I can't believe you managed to be even more clueless than the Gamespot dude.
Also, the examiner comparing the competitive side to Star Craft while we've got a handful of teams trying to break the onos strats is quite ridiculous. There's definitely potential for a good comp game, but NS2 isn't the Mona Lisa of comp play right now, not even close.
I'd much rather have a 8/10 and praise for the things where it's deserved than 9/10 for reasons that just don't make sense.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, the reviews are generally quite superficial, it doesn't seems like the guys put a lot of time or though into it. I wouldn't take what they say very seriously. Modern journalism basically.
Game reviews are a gimmick imo. Some self appointed gaming expert who slaps together a <u><b>shallow</b></u> review after a couple of hours of play & reading up.
If you compare 5 star ratings with 10 point ones, then 5 stars = 10 points, 2,5 stars = 5 points and so on.
As you can see the systems are equivalent in their meaning, only the scale is different.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Except to most reviewers and gamers these days a 5 or lower is the worst score you can get, instead of being an "average" or "serviceable" game.
This crushes the scale to basically 5 to 10, it is completely redundant.
A 5 star systems allow for some more grey area and user interpretation instead of gamers being spoonfed numbers like mentally disabled children.
This crushes the scale to basically 5 to 10, it is completely redundant.
A 5 star systems allow for some more grey area and user interpretation instead of gamers being spoonfed numbers like mentally disabled children.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think a big problem is that shovelware crap gets reviewed. I'd imagine movie reviews would skew a little higher if you had to throw crap direct to DVD movies and Sci-Fi channel movies on the scale.
This crushes the scale to basically 5 to 10, it is completely redundant.
A 5 star systems allow for some more grey area and user interpretation instead of gamers being spoonfed numbers like mentally disabled children.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
False. Numbers are just bad. The only system that seems to work without seeming ham-fisted is the classic "school grade" of A's, B's, C's, and D's. Abstract enough so that the actual content of the review is required for clarity.
If you compare 5 star ratings with 10 point ones, then 5 stars = 10 points, 2,5 stars = 5 points and so on.
As you can see the systems are equivalent in their meaning, only the scale is different.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Where did you get those half stars from? 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 stars, that's the only reasonable use of a number scale. A 10 point or a 100 point scale is so skewed in peoples minds, a 60/100 will NEVER be equal to three stars. Even though it should still be a GOOD grade.
It's pretty simple.
If the gameplay was supposed to be like NS1, they cut too many features and messed up too much strategy.
If the gameplay was supposed to be the next chapter in NS, expanding the franchise as a sequel should, they didn't do enough new and are still tethered to old, dated concepts.
So which is it? Because right now I call it NS1.5. It offers almost nothing new over NS1 except an alien commander, but everything else has been ###### with so much that all the fun of NS1 was cut right out of it.
You know how NS1 went through 1.04 -> 2.0 -> 3.0? That's what this is. This is NS 4.0 more than it is NS2.
Natural-Selection is the first game I've seen where the people making accounts to complain about the game are all doing so in a rational manner and logically explaining why they think what they do, and all the fanboys defending it are just complete tools. It's like, totally backwards
No really, educate me, show me exactly how I'm wrong.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The only thing we can do is wait and see how the game evolves. Hopefully the devs will make the right choices. So far I like the game despite many things I would like to have, ie: hivesight. I know exactly where you're coming from Temphage. It's like you have discovered a gold mine, but lack the proper tools to mine it. It can be frustrating.
90/100
Pros:
•Beautifully balanced asymmetrical FPS gameplay
•Works exceedingly well with RTS elements, too
•Requires a lot of skill to be good, but rewards dedication
•Teamwork held at a premium
•Great community, extremely healthy mod support
•Great price
Cons:
•Really tough for new players to break in; takes a lot of time
•Could use some means of balancing teams and player skills
•Occasionally still a bit buggy and suffering from some lag issues
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure, sure...
<!--quoteo(post=2014824:date=Nov 8 2012, 04:59 AM:name=Temphage)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Temphage @ Nov 8 2012, 04:59 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2014824"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What, are you scared that the game isn't quite as good as you thought it was? Why does it matter to you what I think? I've been a member of this community long, long before you, so feel free to ###### right on off.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And here I was thinking the game was very good when in fact it was bad all along! Damn you sir, you have truly bested me with your extremely clear and valid arguments!
You really think that wall of sperg of yours was well thought-out, analytic and constructive criticism deserving of a response, and not whiny, entitled, angry, incoherent rambling mostly about stuff that no one but you even sees as a problem, don't you? Next time try using less hyperbole, elitism, cursing and caps if you want someone to actually take you seriously.
Why do you show up in every thread I'm trying to read with nothing useful to input except for never-ending whining and complaining? And you have 1,100+ posts here.
Does anyone know how to block people so you don't see their comments?
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.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't agree with most of what you said; with Aliens winning 8/10 games according to Official statistics, but I agree with the intent behind it.
Regardless of his score, the article was terribad
"Part of the reason it's difficult is that the game is well balanced" Damn balanced game that makes it difficult for you to win..
Not a single.
######.
One.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Temphage, are you off your meds again? Seriously, chill out before you blow a vessel.
Also, if you think there aren't any posts about Marine's having some OP #### you obviously have selective memory or just aren't paying attention...
People Complain about:
OP One-Shot-Shotguns
OP GL's clearing an entire room of egg's/aliens in one or two clips from one guy.
Infinite Ammo/Constantly firing Dual-Exo's
Fast Marine Respawns
Power Nodes
OP Upgrades
Weak/Useless Turrets
I mean, you've even posted in most of the threads where people are talking about this stuff so you're either trolling or honestly can't remember twenty minutes ago.
To be fair enough, most of the complaints about Marines revolve around them being OP and the aliens complain they're under welming. I do think it's utter B.S. that aliens need to rely on a gimmicky movement process called 'Wall Jumping' that requires you to be a twitch god whereas as Marines all I need to do is be smart enough to whip out my knife when I hold shift and I outrun default skulks without any upgrades. (Hyperbole. But not much.)
This is probably because I suck at wall jumping.
I can see the logic and rationale behind this post.
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.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hugh, as much as it's a bad review, it's very unprofessional to provoke your community to smash the comments because you disagree with it. You could have at least been a bit more subtle about it. If UWE continues to grow as a company, I think you are going to have to take some PR classes or something as to avoid looking amateurish (which at the moment isn't a bad thing) in the future.
I have not read the review yet, but if he did commit factual inaccuracies than he needs to be called out on it. You think a corporation would stand by while another company spreads lies about them? lol.
Corporations go after each other's throats all the time. There's nothing amateurish about it.