<!--quoteo(post=2014568:date=Nov 7 2012, 02:47 PM:name=Strayan (NS2HD))--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Strayan (NS2HD) @ Nov 7 2012, 02:47 PM) <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-->
Some feed back I gave the review.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Terrible review. Fire Eric Neigher for being a lazy journalist.
Some users experience long load times. Its a bug. Most users don’t. I have a core 2 duo from 2009/10 that loads faster than the UN-skippable splash screens of most games rated 8.0 or higher on gamespot. So please, long wait times? Try your other test computer dingus. Since when did waiting for games to launch become an issue for gamespot? You have left so many annoying game interfaces unscathed by your flawed review process.
Graphics look better than borderlands, which had some many issues that were left ignored by the reviewer, and wasnt dinged for graphics.
Its also 25 bucks, not 30, but according to the reviewer, years of indi development work isnt worth some cash, and its okay to get on newbies cases about wanting "free stuff".
Give me a break. Fire this reviewer. He cant form a single valid argument against the game to reflect his gut-feeling of giving this a 6.
We can only hope that this will be a stand out review, and people can go back and laugh at it later when more people are playing this than boarderlands in 24 months.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Plus, when taking into account gamespots 7-10 review scale, this basically is rating the game ######.
Also, Scumbag reviewer complains about a 25 price tag on a highly ambitious GAME that’s been in development for years. Turns around and doesnt complain about $60 games. Do me a favor and disappear.
I rate this review 0/10<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Rawrrah. I find it cute that you have not realized that the entire gaming review scale works between ratings 7-10, and that anything less is basically calling the game ######. This isn't just anecdotal, publishers give out bonus’ dependant on this fact, and it affects sales.
Its cute that game reviewers actually try to use a scaling system, as if it accurately can quantify the quality of a game, as this review clearly shows its failures.
Reviewers should do their best to describe the qualities and weaknesses of games, which Eric Neigher fails at. Seriously, I don’t think the PC is your platform, bro. Read the review as if there wasn’t a rating. Is it a 6? I certainly dont think so, if I actually had to try to fit this skitzo review into a single number.
tldr; Game ratings need to stop. They are cancer. Eric Neigher is fail.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
One last thing I want to mention about NS2. Several people I play other games with that I work with have seen me playing NS2. We sit around and talk about the games we play. I thought about mentioning NS2 to them... but I just didn't. The bold faced truth is that I simply cannot recommend this game in its current state. While most of my complaints stem from 'What did NS2 fail to do to advance from NS1', for a new player, those complaints will instead be:
- "Why is my server list empty all the time?" - "Why are my two GTX-560s running the game at only 40 FPS?" - "What the ###### is going on?" - "I keep getting shot and killed in like half a second, what the hell."
I imagine after they get over the ridiculous learning curve, they'll figure out their own complaints about the game on their own. Given the torrent of similar voices saying the same thing... not a good sign, UWE, not a good sign at all.
PS: Stop ###### listening to NS1 fanboys and focus on making a fun game that everyone wants to play that will earn money. Because after hearing about the features that got cut due to pointless whining and the attempt to make things too much like NS1... that isn't going to keep you in business. Splash Damage made Quake Wars which was built entire around Wolf:ET players' desires and it failed miserably. There wasn't anything wrong with it, really, but it turns out only Wolf:ET players cared about Wolf:ET's gameplay, and not all of them were prepared to pay for it. Everyone else didn't give a ###### and they didn't make enough money in the end. Oh, and putting all your eggs in the e-sports basket isn't going to help you make the game better.
Holy ######, wall of text. My professional opinion is that you need to take a step back and try playing again in a month or two when some of the weird nonissue meta-complaints you have start to matter less. NS2 is a fantastic game and 6/10 by Gamespot metrics is a travesty before god and man.
<!--quoteo(post=2014784:date=Nov 8 2012, 01:30 AM:name=cmc5788)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cmc5788 @ Nov 8 2012, 01:30 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2014784"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Holy ######, wall of text. My professional opinion is that you need to take a step back and try playing again in a month or two when some of the weird nonissue meta-complaints you have start to matter less. NS2 is a fantastic game and 6/10 by Gamespot metrics is a travesty before god and man.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> If you think my complaints are 'nonissues', you need to wake the ###### up and see what kind of complaints are filling the last three pages of the general discussions forum. In fact, by thread popularity, most of the issues are complaints about the game. Many of the posters aren't new, and talk about how the voiced the same complaints in beta. The vast, vast majority of the complaints are coming from people who have presented valid, clear issues and did so in a constructive manner - or at least they vocalized their complaints in a professional manner. Which lends the complaints much more credibility.
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.
Even the 5-minute Onos complaints are based around the fact that it makes already bad alien gameplay just that much worse by forcing such linear, predictable strategy to actually win.
Oh and uh, if you couldn't tell from my post just above yours, I doubt Ill be playing this game for several months, not unless it gets a massive redesign. I actually contemplated asking for a refund at some point, because this definitely is not a sequel to NS, and it's hard to claim that it even feels like a full game. Just because you're an indy team doesn't make flaws forgivable. If this game was given to us by Ubisoft... holy ###### this place would be an inferno.
Surely it would be better to go about factual inaccuracies on gamespot in a behind the scenes e-mailing type of way first, Hugh, then start a comment war if you don't get anywhere?
<!--quoteo(post=2014798:date=Nov 7 2012, 06:41 PM:name=MuYeah)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MuYeah @ Nov 7 2012, 06:41 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2014798"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Surely it would be better to go about factual inaccuracies on gamespot in a behind the scenes e-mailing type of way first, Hugh, then start a comment war if you don't get anywhere?
Professionalism and all that.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> It's not worth being the bigger man with a boneheaded reviewer like that, who couldn't even take his time to get his short list of facts straight. Never mind the illogical and downright dumb arguments behind his criticisms.
<!--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-->Oh and uh, if you couldn't tell from my post just above yours, I doubt Ill be playing this game for several months, not unless it gets a massive redesign. I actually contemplated asking for a refund at some point<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You should have asked for one. Good goddamn riddance. You seem to have the rare quality of being able to literally talk yourself out of having fun, and I think as a community we're all better off without you.
This, even if I thought NS2 was a bad game, is an AWFUL review. It is poorly written, the flow is bad, there are factual inaccuracies, and it makes no real attempt to explain the gameplay beyond a really broad brushstroke. I could care less about the arbitrary number he assigned it, but when I read the meat of the review I should easily be able to tell what the game is about and what parts the reviewer did not enjoy. So, when I roll through this text he has written it just screams "I put no time into this review and spent very little time actually playing the game." The biggest sign, other than referring to infestation as creep (which I can almost forgive), is that through the entire thing, none of marine tech or alien lifeforms are mentioned. The only place I see lore related terminology is on the caption for the screenshot. Why is the first time I see the word skulk on a screenshot? What does that mean for someone who has never heard of the game?
A reviewer's job isn't to just paint a good picture of a game. Often times they need to paint a poor picture because they believe the game truly deserves it. The problem here is that the picture is non-existent. This is shoddy journalism, an example of amateur writing and if someone wants to give the game a bad review then they need to put in the time to tell me why. It is not that he didn't have valid criticisms, it is that for their target audience (which is broad as hell), there is no frame for the criticism. When he said the learning curve is steep he doesn't explain why it's steep.
As an aside: Sometimes it felt like he was using the synonym tool in Word without regard to the rest of his piece. "other side as a cadre of ... alien creatures. " Things like this stand out as odd when they don't match the rest of the voice in your writing.
At least I can rest assured that my decision to not look to GameSpot for quality reviews a few years ago still stands.
<!--quoteo(post=2014824:date=Nov 7 2012, 07:59 PM:name=Temphage)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Temphage @ Nov 7 2012, 07:59 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2014824"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Sure, if your idea of 'community' is 'people who agree with my opinions'.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't agree with some of your opinions, but I do agree with some. It's your presentation that leaves something to be desired. You're clearly burned out on this game, you have a preconceived notion gained through too much forum lurking that all is doom and gloom, and you're incapable of prying yourself away for long enough to remember that NS2 is actually a really fun game and you're blowing all of this way out of proportion. The net effect of this is, you don't have fun, and you drag everyone around you right back down with you. Try to back the hell off for a little. Get off the forums and take a few deep breaths.
<!--quoteo(post=2014824:date=Nov 7 2012, 07:59 PM:name=Temphage)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Temphage @ Nov 7 2012, 07:59 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2014824"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Open your ###### eyes, this forum is full of nothing but people, many who joined specifically to say that the game is no fun, lacks depth, people mocking the design, and that it's badly balanced and doesn't play well. The Steam forums are just as bad.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I've got some news for you about game forums. I've seen one or two in my time and this description could apply to any of them, regardless of the game. All games have problems and all games have a usually small minority of vocal malcontents trolling about their forums unable to voice their opinions in a manner that isn't vile.
<!--quoteo(post=2014824:date=Nov 7 2012, 07:59 PM:name=Temphage)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Temphage @ Nov 7 2012, 07:59 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2014824"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->People like you are why ###### games get made in the first place. At least I had the balls to have a ###### opinion of my own and not cling to blind fanboyism, and explain in detail why I think what I do, instead of patronizing people you don't ###### agree with because you're too much of a spineless coward to even properly defend the game you're infatuated with.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's right man, bring it home. You need to take a break. You have a bad case of forum fever.
<!--quoteo(post=2014824:date=Nov 8 2012, 01:59 AM:name=Temphage)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Temphage @ Nov 8 2012, 01:59 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2014824"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Sure, if your idea of 'community' is 'people who agree with my opinions'. Karl Rove? Is that you?
Open your ###### eyes, this forum is full of nothing but people, many who joined specifically to say this, that the game is no fun, lacks depth, there's people mocking the design, beta testers saying that this is all old arguments, that nothing ever changed, and that it's badly balanced and doesn't play well. The Steam forums are just as bad.
People like you are why bad games get made in the first place. At least I had the balls to have a ###### opinion of my own and not cling to blind fanboyism, and explain in detail why I think what I do, where as you instead decide to patronize people who don't agree with because you're too much of a spineless coward to even properly defend the game you're infatuated with, despite the fact that you obviously feel personally threatened by my opinion. 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? Been a member of this community long, long before you, so feel to ###### right on off.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're calling this person a spineless coward over a game. You are terrible
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".
Make up your mind.
The few relevant things you actually did say about the issues that new players might have coming into the game are basically non existent or ridiculous. "What the ###### is going on?"? Really? Dual 560tis should be able to go higher than 40 fps, every time. Someone deciding to quit the game after dying in 'half a second over and over again' sounds just like that console kiddie reviewer from gamespot. If someone like that decides to stop playing, you know what I say? Good riddance.
Granted there are a few issues with cookie cutter builds on the alien side and to the same extent on the marine side as well. These issues will be fixed. UWE had to meet a deadline for 1.0. That doesn't mean they're done working on the game. In fact theres going to be a patch this week.
The 3 friends I convinced to buy this game say it's one of the most fun games they've played in a long time. I want to believe most other newer players feel this way as well.
<!--quoteo(post=2014846:date=Nov 7 2012, 08:22 PM:name=ChickenOfWar)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ChickenOfWar @ Nov 7 2012, 08:22 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2014846"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The 3 friends I convinced to buy this game say it's one of the most fun games they've played in a long time. I want to believe most other newer players feel this way as well.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
All evidence points to this being the case. New players love NS2. The most vocal naysayers will be, almost universally, jaded NS1 vets who like to pretend to be armchair game designers in their spare time and are being slowly crushed under the weight of their own sense of entitlement and ego. And, of course, they like to frame any negative reaction to their horrible posting as some sort of conspiracy against their right to have an opinion.
Don't get me wrong, their are plenty of awesome NS1 veterans out there. Hell, I played NS1 for years. I guess some of us are just a little past our expiration date.
<!--quoteo(post=2014681:date=Nov 7 2012, 07:08 PM:name=Onii-chan)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Onii-chan @ Nov 7 2012, 07:08 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2014681"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Metacritic is still huge, largely because valve still promotes them in steam (What the ###### valve!). The problem with that is they don't differentiate between scores like this and scores from review sites that actually do hard work and put effort into reviewing their games. And one outlier review like this can destroy a games metacritic score.
The really frustrating thing is numerical reviews are generally stupid regardless. I really like turn based strategy games. I've had to get used to some of the best games in the genera having 75 as their average score, because it's just not the style that most people like. The rare review company tries to pair reviewers that are good with a certain genre with that genre, but a lot of sites can't be assed to put effort into presenting all genre's fairly.
The other unfair thing is... So NS2 will come out now, be a bit buggy, be a bit unpolished, be short of it's full potential, and so it's metacritic score will be, I'm not sure, maybe 80. Well, this time next year NS2 will be a different game. 1 year dated to it's competitors, sure, but this game is going to be extremely nice for gameplay in many ways that it currently is not. How many sites do you think will change their review scores? How likely do you think it is that metacritic is updated?
Frankly, what we really need is a better more sensible alternative to metacritic. One that forgives games for mistakes that they fix after release, and at the same time doesn't discriminate so harshly in genre bias, and ultimately is a place where I can actually find out about great game experiences!
How many points should NS lose for not having a campaign? How many points should it gain for it's pleasantly open development style? How many points should they gain or lose for the quality of the community they've harnessed? All of these things effect the fun of the game, but in totally different ways. How do you really objectively put these types of considerations into a number out of 100? Reviews consistently fail to even mention the things about a game that make it worth playing/buying, ArmA is a bad game that is INCREDIBLY fun because the community is awesome for example. I'm sick of being told why I shouldn't play games by people who are supposed to be objectively rooting out the most amazing game experiences for me. Tell me how to get the most value out of my money, not how to amass libraries of stuff I never touch, because the graphics are pretty and the options menu is nice, but the game just isn't fun to the type of gamer I am.
<!--quoteo(post=2013241:date=Nov 6 2012, 03:18 PM:name=tarquinbb)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tarquinbb @ Nov 6 2012, 03:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2013241"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
SC1 did have a tutorial... Go play the first Terran mission... there's even a button there that says "SKIP TUTORIAL" in the briefing...
Come on guys, games criticism is a complete joke. Numbered scores couldn't be more inconsistent if the entire industry tried. Plus, it's sickeningly obvious of the buddy-buddy relationship between AAA PR publishers and the "most popular" critics who give out numbers. (Every single critic listed under Metacritic). ###### kids lap these review scores up, and base their purchasing decision solely on hype and arbitrary review numbers.
I recommend reading this <a href="http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-10-24-lost-humanity-18-a-table-of-doritos" target="_blank">article</a>. It's a good read.
Personally, I only read reviews if they are without a scoring system. I also like to watch actual gameplay videos on Youtube.
<!--quoteo(post=2014909:date=Nov 7 2012, 09:12 PM:name=Squishpoke)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Squishpoke @ Nov 7 2012, 09:12 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2014909"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->ITT: People who still read "numbered" reviews.
Come on guys, games criticism is a complete joke. Numbered scores couldn't be more inconsistent if the entire industry tried. Plus, it's sickeningly obvious of the buddy-buddy relationship between AAA PR publishers and the "most popular" critics who give out numbers. (Every single critic listed under Metacritic). ###### kids lap these review scores up, and base their purchasing decision solely on hype and arbitrary review numbers.
I recommend reading this <a href="http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-10-24-lost-humanity-18-a-table-of-doritos" target="_blank">article</a>. It's a good read.
Personally, I only read reviews if they are without a scoring system. I also like to watch actual gameplay videos on Youtube.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I wouldn't care at all if it were only for my own personal gratification, but metacritic is in many ways considered the objective metric by which games are judged, and only scored reviews play into that. Metacritic is awful but it's a necessary evil and will directly impact a game's bottom line in the long run. You can't just put your fingers and your ears, close your eyes and wish it away. I really wish you could.
All hail RPS...! All hail RPS...! All hail RPS...!
I stopped reading game reviews a long time ago, but then I found Rock Paper Shotgun. A neat, extremely clutter free site, with reviews that don't sound like school presentations but like actual people playing games. They try to be witty a tad too often, but it's bearable. (Unless you're a bear. -Yes, exactly like that.)
Also, for some reason, the comments (that are also well placed) are pretty damn enlightened. Some pretty oldschool/hardcore gamers there. I hardly ever comment even though I'm registered, because I always feel I've nothing to add. >x|
Also, it updates every 10 seconds. Well no, but if I check it in the morning and come back afternoon there's 2-5 more pieces to read. Blergh!
Since I already advertised to the max, here's the link to top it off:
<!--quoteo(post=2014962:date=Nov 7 2012, 09:00 PM:name=Mestaritonttu)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Mestaritonttu @ Nov 7 2012, 09:00 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2014962"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->All hail RPS...! All hail RPS...! All hail RPS...!
I stopped reading game reviews a long time ago, but then I found Rock Paper Shotgun. A neat, extremely clutter free site, with reviews that don't sound like school presentations but like actual people playing games. They try to be witty a tad too often, but it's bearable. (Unless you're a bear. -Yes, exactly like that.)
Also, for some reason, the comments (that are also well placed) are pretty damn enlightened. Some pretty oldschool/hardcore gamers there. I hardly ever comment even though I'm registered, because I always feel I've nothing to add. >x|
Also, it updates every 10 seconds. Well no, but if I check it in the morning and come back afternoon there's 2-5 more pieces to read. Blergh!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
RPS happens to be my favorite, and I'm still waiting on their WIT so I can see what Walker/Meer/Smith thinks about it.
Numbered reviews are fine but I find gamespot has been underrating a lot of games lately.
Pokemon BW 2 getting a 6.5 for example. It got a 6.5 for repeating the same formula "EXCEPT" the problem with that is:
1. Pokemon fans who play said games are mostly content with the changes from BW to BW2. Most long term Pokemon fans know the formula of Pokemon games (of course people who play the Pokemon games are probably not going to have their mind changed by some random reviews).
2. New fans will find the game satisfying (making the whole recycling thing moot) <- This is the important thing. Taking out of long term fans out of the equation (since they'll buy anything), how is the game to newer players?
Pokemon is a solid and I say one of the few classic turn based RPGs around. It ages well IMO (still addicting and fun to play).
Also visiting the pokemon wiki (I use bulbagarden) while playing the game = extra fun (it's always fun to visit game wikis, assuming they do not have malicious ads in them like wikia had a few years ago >.>).
Anyway, Pokemon BW2 is just one recent example of Gamespot underrating a game. (It's just 0.5 under the 7-10 scale which is bad.)
A lot of people (especially new to game reviews or new to gaming in general) will see the 6.5 and compare the 6.5 to other games. Pokemon BW2 got a 6.5 mainly because it's mostly the same game as the other Pokemon games (it does have improvements, a new story, but it's generally the same game as the previous ones). Pokemon BW2 is definitely better than most 6.5 games gamespot gave and reviewed in the past. That's the problem with gamespot, they're a bit inconsistent with their numbers.
Anyway, as for the discussion on numbered reviews?
<b>Number reviews are fine IMO. Here's my criteria (if I did a review) on whether a game gets a 10 or just a 8 (for example):</b>
1. A game gets a 10 if there are no further (reasonable, within budget and time) improvements can be made.
For example, lets say there is this great game and it's really fun. Lets just say it's an RPG for example (I like RPGs). The game is great but it lacks one thing - some sort of replayability or end game content (you know, grinding is always fun; testing your grind out characters on content is something you want to look forward to). Also maybe the game lacks new game + too (I like new game +, sometimes I want to just roll through the story again with overpowered characters).
It would lose maybe a 0.5 point for that (otherwise it would get a 10/10, unless the game is super awesome in other areas).
Something as simple as adding a boss rush (like Recettear for example) would boost it up to a 10/10 for me.
So, that's my criteria for a 10/10 - If the game lacks any improvements (within budget, time, and practicability).
2. A game gets 8-9 if: - The game is just good (no need to say more). - It gets an 8 if it's likely to be liked by fans of the genre (if you like RTS, then you should get this game, for example). - It gets a 9 if it's likely to be liked by even players that aren't particularly fans of the genre.
3. A game gets 7 if is good but has some glaring flaws or issues with the game.
4. 1-6 = Basically the same thing. A 6/10 is something that maybe fans of the genre and fans of whatever the game is based off of (if it's based off of anything) may like. 1-5 is practically a no no as for buying.
Yeah, number systems are flawed in a way because of this. But IMO, they're good enough. For example, my criteria on whether a game gets a 10 is whether the game "cannot" get any decent improvements (within budget and practically of course).
For example, any RPGs that are great but lack a boss rush mode or a "re fight variety of bosses mode" and they lack new game + (because I like going through the story again with OP chars)... they won't get a 10 (unless the game is epic in other areas). I want that 9/10 to be like "why didn't you guys add a boss rush mode or new game +"?
(This means I'll probably award 10/10s frequently. 10/10 would mean, I couldn't find any ways the games could have been massively improved, practically.)
Anyway, that's my 0.02 on numbered reviews. They work but they need to establish what gets a 10/10, what gets a 7/10, etc + they also need to be consistent.
Gorginator. What you are asking for is impossible for the same reason people use to give pitchfork ###### for rating music in its entirety a 6.
Games, like any other form of expression, are far to complex to quanitfy with a single number. When you couple this with the fact that people, in general, are easily swayed by crap reasoning so long as it can be wrapped up in a simple easy to swallow number, you see disgusting behaviors like, developers not getting bonus' from their hugely profitable publisher when their hugely successful game does not get an 8.5 on metacritic.
Keep your train of though going, and you will conclude something close to this, it seems. Single quantifiable numbers to rate a game is an inherently flawed way of passing judgment on a game, and it will ultimately damage the creative landscape as it closes off unexplored areas of creative risk.
Metacritic isn't a necessary evil. It's completely unnecessary. It's a site dedicated to aggregating other reviews and creating a score. It produces nothing of value other than saving people time by putting every review in one place. And by every review, I mean reviews from sites that give them money or that will draw attention to Metacritic. It's terrible that a game's overall sales can be affected by a system that doesn't take different review scales into account. A 4/5 is a HUGE LEAP from an 80% in the majority of people's minds. Four stars means: Yeah, that's probably a decent game. An 80% basically equates to "I'm not buying that! It was TWENTY WHOLE POINTS AWAY FROM 100%!" I know this is dumb. But we live in a world where they had to call the current generation XBOX the 360º because the PS3 had a higher number in it than XBOX 2 would have had. People rarely fully understand the numbers they read.
Gamespot UK's review of a 6/10 is a damning score. It's a D. This game isn't a D-quality game or anywhere near it. <a href="http://www.1up.com/do/blogEntry?bId=8877080&publicUserId=5784087" target="_blank">Eric Neighber is a guy known for being an incompetent spaz</a>. He has reviewed several other games and given them really low scores because he didn't understand the basic mechanics of the game. It's a goddamn travesty that they allowed this incompetent jack-ass to remain on their payroll for over 4 years, but that's just how it works. People rage over his reviews, he brags about it on his blog, and Gamespot UK gets a few more hits of advertising money. Since NS2 didn't pay for advertising, Gamespot couldn't care less about it. Thus, they assigned the moron that draws attention. This hurts journalism as a whole. It makes Gamespot a huge part of a persistent problem of invalid journalism. They should be ashamed (but they aren't because money.)
I wouldn't pay too much attention to the press NS2 gets. It's a difficult game to grasp for some people (I still don't understand why, but it is.) This automatically makes it the worst game ever, of course. God forbid someone have an attention span longer than ten minutes, but hey, different strokes for different folks, right? Then there are the complaints that only a few strategies are valid, which isn't even true unless you are playing competitive play... in which case it is true in every game played competitively. Sure, you get the occasional game against a Comm that is just extremely good, and your team gets steam rolled because you didn't use a pro-strat, but who cares. You just leave and play a different server. I have a perfect record as an alien commander, approximately 25 games won and exactly 0 games lost. I don't use pro-strats, I just make sure every one is having fun and thinking that they are fighting the good fight. And thus, NS2 is rewarding and fun, precisely because I don't spend so much time picking it apart. If you do that with any game, you'll find ugly imperfections. Just play.
Temphage, you're too angry. It gets in the way of your many times probably legitimate critique.
<!--quoteo(post=2014880:date=Nov 8 2012, 03:47 AM:name=Swiftspear)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Swiftspear @ Nov 8 2012, 03:47 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2014880"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The other unfair thing is... So NS2 will come out now, be a bit buggy, be a bit unpolished, be short of it's full potential, and so it's metacritic score will be, I'm not sure, maybe 80. Well, this time next year NS2 will be a different game. 1 year dated to it's competitors, sure, but this game is going to be extremely nice for gameplay in many ways that it currently is not. How many sites do you think will change their review scores? How likely do you think it is that metacritic is updated?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Unknown Worlds could release an expansion. <i>Natural Selection 2: Catchy Subtitle</i>, with several new Kharaa lifeforms and space suits for the Marines, and with parts of the maps without gravity and sound. :O
<!--quoteo(post=2014893:date=Nov 7 2012, 09:53 PM:name=mushookees)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mushookees @ Nov 7 2012, 09:53 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2014893"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><!--sizeo:7--><span style="font-size:36pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo-->QFT<!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec--><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Really? It's like the game design equivalent of listening to a football player ramble innately about what's wrong with chess...
<!--quoteo(post=2015057:date=Nov 7 2012, 10:01 PM:name=Gorginator)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Gorginator @ Nov 7 2012, 10:01 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2015057"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Number reviews are fine IMO.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I personally disagree. I feel that it is basically impossible to objectively analyze games into a coherent score system. To be completely objective (only grading graphics, sound, design, etc) would be soulless and missing the point of game criticism. Defining good "gameplay" and "fun" is subjective and impossible to portray accurately without damaging whatever "objective" standards that are in place. Thus, having a consistent review system cannot be done.
Even after that, you can get a ridiculous situation where people try to compare completely different games based on their score, to determine what is "superior." Next time I hear someone say that XYZ game is better than ABC game because it scored a 9.8 instead of 8.5, I'm going to slam my face into a butter dish.
And from there, the review meta-machine has made it an industry standard to reward redundant game design and punish risks. In my opinion, this leads to the danger of stagnating creative development. Most PC games are not quite at that level yet, but on Xbox land it definitely seems to be the case at this current time frame.
<!--quoteo(post=2014715:date=Nov 7 2012, 04:39 PM:name=Temphage)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Temphage @ Nov 7 2012, 04:39 PM) <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 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.
Comments
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-->
Some feed back I gave the review.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Terrible review. Fire Eric Neigher for being a lazy journalist.
Some users experience long load times. Its a bug. Most users don’t. I have a core 2 duo from 2009/10 that loads faster than the UN-skippable splash screens of most games rated 8.0 or higher on gamespot. So please, long wait times? Try your other test computer dingus. Since when did waiting for games to launch become an issue for gamespot? You have left so many annoying game interfaces unscathed by your flawed review process.
Graphics look better than borderlands, which had some many issues that were left ignored by the reviewer, and wasnt dinged for graphics.
Its also 25 bucks, not 30, but according to the reviewer, years of indi development work isnt worth some cash, and its okay to get on newbies cases about wanting "free stuff".
Give me a break. Fire this reviewer. He cant form a single valid argument against the game to reflect his gut-feeling of giving this a 6.
We can only hope that this will be a stand out review, and people can go back and laugh at it later when more people are playing this than boarderlands in 24 months.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Plus, when taking into account gamespots 7-10 review scale, this basically is rating the game ######.
Also, Scumbag reviewer complains about a 25 price tag on a highly ambitious GAME that’s been in development for years. Turns around and doesnt complain about $60 games. Do me a favor and disappear.
I rate this review 0/10<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Rawrrah. I find it cute that you have not realized that the entire gaming review scale works between ratings 7-10, and that anything less is basically calling the game ######. This isn't just anecdotal, publishers give out bonus’ dependant on this fact, and it affects sales.
Its cute that game reviewers actually try to use a scaling system, as if it accurately can quantify the quality of a game, as this review clearly shows its failures.
Reviewers should do their best to describe the qualities and weaknesses of games, which Eric Neigher fails at. Seriously, I don’t think the PC is your platform, bro. Read the review as if there wasn’t a rating. Is it a 6? I certainly dont think so, if I actually had to try to fit this skitzo review into a single number.
tldr; Game ratings need to stop. They are cancer. Eric Neigher is fail.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
- "Why is my server list empty all the time?"
- "Why are my two GTX-560s running the game at only 40 FPS?"
- "What the ###### is going on?"
- "I keep getting shot and killed in like half a second, what the hell."
I imagine after they get over the ridiculous learning curve, they'll figure out their own complaints about the game on their own. Given the torrent of similar voices saying the same thing... not a good sign, UWE, not a good sign at all.
PS: Stop ###### listening to NS1 fanboys and focus on making a fun game that everyone wants to play that will earn money. Because after hearing about the features that got cut due to pointless whining and the attempt to make things too much like NS1... that isn't going to keep you in business. Splash Damage made Quake Wars which was built entire around Wolf:ET players' desires and it failed miserably. There wasn't anything wrong with it, really, but it turns out only Wolf:ET players cared about Wolf:ET's gameplay, and not all of them were prepared to pay for it. Everyone else didn't give a ###### and they didn't make enough money in the end. Oh, and putting all your eggs in the e-sports basket isn't going to help you make the game better.
If you think my complaints are 'nonissues', you need to wake the ###### up and see what kind of complaints are filling the last three pages of the general discussions forum. In fact, by thread popularity, most of the issues are complaints about the game. Many of the posters aren't new, and talk about how the voiced the same complaints in beta. The vast, vast majority of the complaints are coming from people who have presented valid, clear issues and did so in a constructive manner - or at least they vocalized their complaints in a professional manner. Which lends the complaints much more credibility.
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.
Even the 5-minute Onos complaints are based around the fact that it makes already bad alien gameplay just that much worse by forcing such linear, predictable strategy to actually win.
Oh and uh, if you couldn't tell from my post just above yours, I doubt Ill be playing this game for several months, not unless it gets a massive redesign. I actually contemplated asking for a refund at some point, because this definitely is not a sequel to NS, and it's hard to claim that it even feels like a full game. Just because you're an indy team doesn't make flaws forgivable. If this game was given to us by Ubisoft... holy ###### this place would be an inferno.
Professionalism and all that.
Professionalism and all that.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's not worth being the bigger man with a boneheaded reviewer like that, who couldn't even take his time to get his short list of facts straight. Never mind the illogical and downright dumb arguments behind his criticisms.
You should have asked for one. Good goddamn riddance. You seem to have the rare quality of being able to literally talk yourself out of having fun, and I think as a community we're all better off without you.
<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, even if I thought NS2 was a bad game, is an AWFUL review. It is poorly written, the flow is bad, there are factual inaccuracies, and it makes no real attempt to explain the gameplay beyond a really broad brushstroke. I could care less about the arbitrary number he assigned it, but when I read the meat of the review I should easily be able to tell what the game is about and what parts the reviewer did not enjoy. So, when I roll through this text he has written it just screams "I put no time into this review and spent very little time actually playing the game." The biggest sign, other than referring to infestation as creep (which I can almost forgive), is that through the entire thing, none of marine tech or alien lifeforms are mentioned. The only place I see lore related terminology is on the caption for the screenshot. Why is the first time I see the word skulk on a screenshot? What does that mean for someone who has never heard of the game?
A reviewer's job isn't to just paint a good picture of a game. Often times they need to paint a poor picture because they believe the game truly deserves it. The problem here is that the picture is non-existent. This is shoddy journalism, an example of amateur writing and if someone wants to give the game a bad review then they need to put in the time to tell me why. It is not that he didn't have valid criticisms, it is that for their target audience (which is broad as hell), there is no frame for the criticism. When he said the learning curve is steep he doesn't explain why it's steep.
As an aside: Sometimes it felt like he was using the synonym tool in Word without regard to the rest of his piece. "other side as a cadre of ... alien creatures. " Things like this stand out as odd when they don't match the rest of the voice in your writing.
At least I can rest assured that my decision to not look to GameSpot for quality reviews a few years ago still stands.
I don't agree with some of your opinions, but I do agree with some. It's your presentation that leaves something to be desired. You're clearly burned out on this game, you have a preconceived notion gained through too much forum lurking that all is doom and gloom, and you're incapable of prying yourself away for long enough to remember that NS2 is actually a really fun game and you're blowing all of this way out of proportion. The net effect of this is, you don't have fun, and you drag everyone around you right back down with you. Try to back the hell off for a little. Get off the forums and take a few deep breaths.
<!--quoteo(post=2014824:date=Nov 7 2012, 07:59 PM:name=Temphage)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Temphage @ Nov 7 2012, 07:59 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2014824"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Open your ###### eyes, this forum is full of nothing but people, many who joined specifically to say that the game is no fun, lacks depth, people mocking the design, and that it's badly balanced and doesn't play well. The Steam forums are just as bad.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I've got some news for you about game forums. I've seen one or two in my time and this description could apply to any of them, regardless of the game. All games have problems and all games have a usually small minority of vocal malcontents trolling about their forums unable to voice their opinions in a manner that isn't vile.
<!--quoteo(post=2014824:date=Nov 7 2012, 07:59 PM:name=Temphage)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Temphage @ Nov 7 2012, 07:59 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2014824"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->People like you are why ###### games get made in the first place. At least I had the balls to have a ###### opinion of my own and not cling to blind fanboyism, and explain in detail why I think what I do, instead of patronizing people you don't ###### agree with because you're too much of a spineless coward to even properly defend the game you're infatuated with.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's right man, bring it home. You need to take a break. You have a bad case of forum fever.
Open your ###### eyes, this forum is full of nothing but people, many who joined specifically to say this, that the game is no fun, lacks depth, there's people mocking the design, beta testers saying that this is all old arguments, that nothing ever changed, and that it's badly balanced and doesn't play well. The Steam forums are just as bad.
People like you are why bad games get made in the first place. At least I had the balls to have a ###### opinion of my own and not cling to blind fanboyism, and explain in detail why I think what I do, where as you instead decide to patronize people who don't agree with because you're too much of a spineless coward to even properly defend the game you're infatuated with, despite the fact that you obviously feel personally threatened by my opinion. 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? Been a member of this community long, long before you, so feel to ###### right on off.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're calling this person a spineless coward over a game. You are terrible
Make up your mind.
The few relevant things you actually did say about the issues that new players might have coming into the game are basically non existent or ridiculous. "What the ###### is going on?"? Really? Dual 560tis should be able to go higher than 40 fps, every time. Someone deciding to quit the game after dying in 'half a second over and over again' sounds just like that console kiddie reviewer from gamespot. If someone like that decides to stop playing, you know what I say? Good riddance.
Granted there are a few issues with cookie cutter builds on the alien side and to the same extent on the marine side as well. These issues will be fixed. UWE had to meet a deadline for 1.0. That doesn't mean they're done working on the game. In fact theres going to be a patch this week.
The 3 friends I convinced to buy this game say it's one of the most fun games they've played in a long time. I want to believe most other newer players feel this way as well.
All evidence points to this being the case. New players love NS2. The most vocal naysayers will be, almost universally, jaded NS1 vets who like to pretend to be armchair game designers in their spare time and are being slowly crushed under the weight of their own sense of entitlement and ego. And, of course, they like to frame any negative reaction to their horrible posting as some sort of conspiracy against their right to have an opinion.
Don't get me wrong, their are plenty of awesome NS1 veterans out there. Hell, I played NS1 for years. I guess some of us are just a little past our expiration date.
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.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Metacritic is still huge, largely because valve still promotes them in steam (What the ###### valve!). The problem with that is they don't differentiate between scores like this and scores from review sites that actually do hard work and put effort into reviewing their games. And one outlier review like this can destroy a games metacritic score.
The really frustrating thing is numerical reviews are generally stupid regardless. I really like turn based strategy games. I've had to get used to some of the best games in the genera having 75 as their average score, because it's just not the style that most people like. The rare review company tries to pair reviewers that are good with a certain genre with that genre, but a lot of sites can't be assed to put effort into presenting all genre's fairly.
The other unfair thing is... So NS2 will come out now, be a bit buggy, be a bit unpolished, be short of it's full potential, and so it's metacritic score will be, I'm not sure, maybe 80. Well, this time next year NS2 will be a different game. 1 year dated to it's competitors, sure, but this game is going to be extremely nice for gameplay in many ways that it currently is not. How many sites do you think will change their review scores? How likely do you think it is that metacritic is updated?
Frankly, what we really need is a better more sensible alternative to metacritic. One that forgives games for mistakes that they fix after release, and at the same time doesn't discriminate so harshly in genre bias, and ultimately is a place where I can actually find out about great game experiences!
How many points should NS lose for not having a campaign? How many points should it gain for it's pleasantly open development style? How many points should they gain or lose for the quality of the community they've harnessed? All of these things effect the fun of the game, but in totally different ways. How do you really objectively put these types of considerations into a number out of 100? Reviews consistently fail to even mention the things about a game that make it worth playing/buying, ArmA is a bad game that is INCREDIBLY fun because the community is awesome for example. I'm sick of being told why I shouldn't play games by people who are supposed to be objectively rooting out the most amazing game experiences for me. Tell me how to get the most value out of my money, not how to amass libraries of stuff I never touch, because the graphics are pretty and the options menu is nice, but the game just isn't fun to the type of gamer I am.
SC1 did have a tutorial... Go play the first Terran mission... there's even a button there that says "SKIP TUTORIAL" in the briefing...
you guys get really angry if someone doesn't like your game
Come on guys, games criticism is a complete joke. Numbered scores couldn't be more inconsistent if the entire industry tried. Plus, it's sickeningly obvious of the buddy-buddy relationship between AAA PR publishers and the "most popular" critics who give out numbers. (Every single critic listed under Metacritic). ###### kids lap these review scores up, and base their purchasing decision solely on hype and arbitrary review numbers.
I recommend reading this <a href="http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-10-24-lost-humanity-18-a-table-of-doritos" target="_blank">article</a>. It's a good read.
Personally, I only read reviews if they are without a scoring system. I also like to watch actual gameplay videos on Youtube.
Come on guys, games criticism is a complete joke. Numbered scores couldn't be more inconsistent if the entire industry tried. Plus, it's sickeningly obvious of the buddy-buddy relationship between AAA PR publishers and the "most popular" critics who give out numbers. (Every single critic listed under Metacritic). ###### kids lap these review scores up, and base their purchasing decision solely on hype and arbitrary review numbers.
I recommend reading this <a href="http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-10-24-lost-humanity-18-a-table-of-doritos" target="_blank">article</a>. It's a good read.
Personally, I only read reviews if they are without a scoring system. I also like to watch actual gameplay videos on Youtube.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I wouldn't care at all if it were only for my own personal gratification, but metacritic is in many ways considered the objective metric by which games are judged, and only scored reviews play into that. Metacritic is awful but it's a necessary evil and will directly impact a game's bottom line in the long run. You can't just put your fingers and your ears, close your eyes and wish it away. I really wish you could.
It's not "numbered" by the way :)
All hail RPS...!
All hail RPS...!
I stopped reading game reviews a long time ago, but then I found Rock Paper Shotgun. A neat, extremely clutter free site, with reviews that don't sound like school presentations but like actual people playing games. They try to be witty a tad too often, but it's bearable. (Unless you're a bear. -Yes, exactly like that.)
Also, for some reason, the comments (that are also well placed) are pretty damn enlightened. Some pretty oldschool/hardcore gamers there. I hardly ever comment even though I'm registered, because I always feel I've nothing to add. >x|
Also, it updates every 10 seconds. Well no, but if I check it in the morning and come back afternoon there's 2-5 more pieces to read. Blergh!
Since I already advertised to the max, here's the link to top it off:
<a href="http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/" target="_blank">http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/</a>
edit: hint: you don't click anywhere, just scroll down.
It's not "numbered" by the way :)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
See, that's how a review should be done. They even included a gameplay video right into the article (along with snippets of the cinematic trailer).
All hail RPS...!
All hail RPS...!
I stopped reading game reviews a long time ago, but then I found Rock Paper Shotgun. A neat, extremely clutter free site, with reviews that don't sound like school presentations but like actual people playing games. They try to be witty a tad too often, but it's bearable. (Unless you're a bear. -Yes, exactly like that.)
Also, for some reason, the comments (that are also well placed) are pretty damn enlightened. Some pretty oldschool/hardcore gamers there. I hardly ever comment even though I'm registered, because I always feel I've nothing to add. >x|
Also, it updates every 10 seconds. Well no, but if I check it in the morning and come back afternoon there's 2-5 more pieces to read. Blergh!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
RPS happens to be my favorite, and I'm still waiting on their WIT so I can see what Walker/Meer/Smith thinks about it.
Pokemon BW 2 getting a 6.5 for example. It got a 6.5 for repeating the same formula "EXCEPT" the problem with that is:
1. Pokemon fans who play said games are mostly content with the changes from BW to BW2. Most long term Pokemon fans know the formula of Pokemon games (of course people who play the Pokemon games are probably not going to have their mind changed by some random reviews).
2. New fans will find the game satisfying (making the whole recycling thing moot) <- This is the important thing. Taking out of long term fans out of the equation (since they'll buy anything), how is the game to newer players?
Pokemon is a solid and I say one of the few classic turn based RPGs around. It ages well IMO (still addicting and fun to play).
Also visiting the pokemon wiki (I use bulbagarden) while playing the game = extra fun (it's always fun to visit game wikis, assuming they do not have malicious ads in them like wikia had a few years ago >.>).
Anyway, Pokemon BW2 is just one recent example of Gamespot underrating a game. (It's just 0.5 under the 7-10 scale which is bad.)
A lot of people (especially new to game reviews or new to gaming in general) will see the 6.5 and compare the 6.5 to other games. Pokemon BW2 got a 6.5 mainly because it's mostly the same game as the other Pokemon games (it does have improvements, a new story, but it's generally the same game as the previous ones). Pokemon BW2 is definitely better than most 6.5 games gamespot gave and reviewed in the past. That's the problem with gamespot, they're a bit inconsistent with their numbers.
Anyway, as for the discussion on numbered reviews?
<b>Number reviews are fine IMO. Here's my criteria (if I did a review) on whether a game gets a 10 or just a 8 (for example):</b>
1. A game gets a 10 if there are no further (reasonable, within budget and time) improvements can be made.
For example, lets say there is this great game and it's really fun. Lets just say it's an RPG for example (I like RPGs). The game is great but it lacks one thing - some sort of replayability or end game content (you know, grinding is always fun; testing your grind out characters on content is something you want to look forward to). Also maybe the game lacks new game + too (I like new game +, sometimes I want to just roll through the story again with overpowered characters).
It would lose maybe a 0.5 point for that (otherwise it would get a 10/10, unless the game is super awesome in other areas).
Something as simple as adding a boss rush (like Recettear for example) would boost it up to a 10/10 for me.
So, that's my criteria for a 10/10 - If the game lacks any improvements (within budget, time, and practicability).
2. A game gets 8-9 if:
- The game is just good (no need to say more).
- It gets an 8 if it's likely to be liked by fans of the genre (if you like RTS, then you should get this game, for example).
- It gets a 9 if it's likely to be liked by even players that aren't particularly fans of the genre.
3. A game gets 7 if is good but has some glaring flaws or issues with the game.
4. 1-6 = Basically the same thing. A 6/10 is something that maybe fans of the genre and fans of whatever the game is based off of (if it's based off of anything) may like. 1-5 is practically a no no as for buying.
Yeah, number systems are flawed in a way because of this. But IMO, they're good enough. For example, my criteria on whether a game gets a 10 is whether the game "cannot" get any decent improvements (within budget and practically of course).
For example, any RPGs that are great but lack a boss rush mode or a "re fight variety of bosses mode" and they lack new game + (because I like going through the story again with OP chars)... they won't get a 10 (unless the game is epic in other areas). I want that 9/10 to be like "why didn't you guys add a boss rush mode or new game +"?
(This means I'll probably award 10/10s frequently. 10/10 would mean, I couldn't find any ways the games could have been massively improved, practically.)
Anyway, that's my 0.02 on numbered reviews. They work but they need to establish what gets a 10/10, what gets a 7/10, etc + they also need to be consistent.
Games, like any other form of expression, are far to complex to quanitfy with a single number. When you couple this with the fact that people, in general, are easily swayed by crap reasoning so long as it can be wrapped up in a simple easy to swallow number, you see disgusting behaviors like, developers not getting bonus' from their hugely profitable publisher when their hugely successful game does not get an 8.5 on metacritic.
Keep your train of though going, and you will conclude something close to this, it seems. Single quantifiable numbers to rate a game is an inherently flawed way of passing judgment on a game, and it will ultimately damage the creative landscape as it closes off unexplored areas of creative risk.
Gamespot UK's review of a 6/10 is a damning score. It's a D. This game isn't a D-quality game or anywhere near it. <a href="http://www.1up.com/do/blogEntry?bId=8877080&publicUserId=5784087" target="_blank">Eric Neighber is a guy known for being an incompetent spaz</a>. He has reviewed several other games and given them really low scores because he didn't understand the basic mechanics of the game. It's a goddamn travesty that they allowed this incompetent jack-ass to remain on their payroll for over 4 years, but that's just how it works. People rage over his reviews, he brags about it on his blog, and Gamespot UK gets a few more hits of advertising money. Since NS2 didn't pay for advertising, Gamespot couldn't care less about it. Thus, they assigned the moron that draws attention. This hurts journalism as a whole. It makes Gamespot a huge part of a persistent problem of invalid journalism. They should be ashamed (but they aren't because money.)
I wouldn't pay too much attention to the press NS2 gets. It's a difficult game to grasp for some people (I still don't understand why, but it is.) This automatically makes it the worst game ever, of course. God forbid someone have an attention span longer than ten minutes, but hey, different strokes for different folks, right? Then there are the complaints that only a few strategies are valid, which isn't even true unless you are playing competitive play... in which case it is true in every game played competitively. Sure, you get the occasional game against a Comm that is just extremely good, and your team gets steam rolled because you didn't use a pro-strat, but who cares. You just leave and play a different server. I have a perfect record as an alien commander, approximately 25 games won and exactly 0 games lost. I don't use pro-strats, I just make sure every one is having fun and thinking that they are fighting the good fight. And thus, NS2 is rewarding and fun, precisely because I don't spend so much time picking it apart. If you do that with any game, you'll find ugly imperfections. Just play.
<!--quoteo(post=2014880:date=Nov 8 2012, 03:47 AM:name=Swiftspear)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Swiftspear @ Nov 8 2012, 03:47 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2014880"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The other unfair thing is... So NS2 will come out now, be a bit buggy, be a bit unpolished, be short of it's full potential, and so it's metacritic score will be, I'm not sure, maybe 80. Well, this time next year NS2 will be a different game. 1 year dated to it's competitors, sure, but this game is going to be extremely nice for gameplay in many ways that it currently is not. How many sites do you think will change their review scores? How likely do you think it is that metacritic is updated?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Unknown Worlds could release an expansion. <i>Natural Selection 2: Catchy Subtitle</i>, with several new Kharaa lifeforms and space suits for the Marines, and with parts of the maps without gravity and sound. :O
Really? It's like the game design equivalent of listening to a football player ramble innately about what's wrong with chess...
I personally disagree. I feel that it is basically impossible to objectively analyze games into a coherent score system. To be completely objective (only grading graphics, sound, design, etc) would be soulless and missing the point of game criticism. Defining good "gameplay" and "fun" is subjective and impossible to portray accurately without damaging whatever "objective" standards that are in place. Thus, having a consistent review system cannot be done.
Even after that, you can get a ridiculous situation where people try to compare completely different games based on their score, to determine what is "superior." Next time I hear someone say that XYZ game is better than ABC game because it scored a 9.8 instead of 8.5, I'm going to slam my face into a butter dish.
And from there, the review meta-machine has made it an industry standard to reward redundant game design and punish risks. In my opinion, this leads to the danger of stagnating creative development. Most PC games are not quite at that level yet, but on Xbox land it definitely seems to be the case at this current time frame.
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-->
Temphage why aren't you working at UWE?!
A 5 star system would be much more flexible and a lot of sites are starting to switch to it.
<img src="http://i.imgur.com/RKgnM.png" border="0" class="linked-image" />