I agree that the review was done poorly, but the kind of stuff some people were posting on here makes it sound like he was outright lying or something... when at absolute worst he was exaggerating and being lazy. I wasn't trying to piss anyone off and have tried to make it clear that I think the review seemed unprofessional. I saw your post saying no one was in contact as contradictory to Hugh's, so was trying to actually get an answer. I wasn't trying to prove a point. I posted in two threads because on forums, developer posts tend to be few and far between and the loudest mouths tend to get their questions answered.
Clearly you guys are much more active than most, and I apologize if my persistence came off as ######ish. It often does on the internet.
@swiftspear, Come on man. You know as well as I do that the right words can go a long way regardless of who says them.
Hate, first of all, they'd probably contact CBS, gamespot's owner, and inform them of gamespot's incompetence, not cry to gamespot directly. With GS losing them money for quite some years now, as well as the uber negative comments, they decided to do some damage control.
<!--quoteo(post=2016493:date=Nov 8 2012, 11:02 PM:name=hate)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (hate @ Nov 8 2012, 11:02 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2016493"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I agree that the review was done poorly, but the kind of stuff some people were posting on here makes it sound like he was outright lying or something... when at absolute worst he was exaggerating. I wasn't trying to piss anyone off and have tried to make it clear that I think the review seemed unprofessional. I saw your post saying no one was in contact as contradictory to Hugh's, so was trying to actually get an answer. I wasn't trying to prove a point. I posted in two threads because on forums, developer posts tend to be few and far between and the loudest mouths tend to get their questions answered.
Clearly you guys are much more active than most, and I apologize if my persistence came off as ######ish. It often does on the internet.
@swiftspear, Come on man. You know as well as I do that the right words can go a long way regardless of who says them.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Dude, he upswung the game's price by 20%. He called infestation "creep." You can't do that sort of thing as a professional journalist. I know games journalism is crap but if we at least pretend to hold these people to a higher standard, they wouldn't have a mandate to be so universally awful. Gamespot's own staff thought the review was bad enough that it needed to be taken down. If you don't believe us, at least believe Gamespot itself. You're acting like UWE bullied these people into censorship, which is absurd because they have absolutely no way to do such a thing.
<!--quoteo(post=2015974:date=Nov 9 2012, 12:43 AM:name=peregrinus)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (peregrinus @ Nov 9 2012, 12:43 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2015974"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The score is still on metacritic. Is that stuck now?
And it says 6.0 on gamespot's search engine <a href="http://uk.gamespot.com/search/?qs=natural+selection+review&sort=date" target="_blank">http://uk.gamespot.com/search/?qs=natural+...w&sort=date</a><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Metacritic isn't an automated system, they've just yet to update it. Nope, it won't be stuck, I know this from previous experience.
Gamespot's site is a mess of bugs, not surprised it's stuck on the search.
But infestation basically IS creep. And was the game not $30 at one point? I'm pretty sure that's what I paid...
<!--QuoteBegin-"http://starcraft.wikia.com/wiki/Creep"+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE ("http://starcraft.wikia.com/wiki/Creep")</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Most zerg structures are effectively giant organs and draw sustenance from creep. A notable exception is the extractor. A zerg colony forms a single living creature through the interconnectivity of creep.[5] Zerg gain nourishment from the creep. Most zerg structures can only be created upon the creep. Terrans and protoss cannot build structures on creep. Terran buildings may not land on the creep, however they may lift-off. The creep will expand to fill the vacated space over the course of a few seconds.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What about that is any different at all to how creep functions in NS2, other than that you have to drop cysts?
There's nothing wrong with that, infestation is a fun mechanic. I enjoy it. It looks ###### AMAZING. But him calling it 'creep' isn't exactly stretching it. The first mod that had anything to do with the infestation changes it into zerg creep.
You guys are coming at me like I'm being some kind of an ######, I'm not trying to defend this guy on a professional level or anything. It was a poorly done review. But getting mad about him saying it costs $5 more than it does, and calling the infestation creep, is kind of ridiculous in my opinion. I never said UWE bullied anyone.
The point is that he didn't play the game enough to learn NS2's name for it, so instead he defaulted to his nearest frame of reference, which for most new players is creep. And regardless of whether the game cost $30 at some point, he's reviewing a released product and by no stretch of the imagination does it cost that amount now.
And no getting irritated at those things is not ridiculous, you either have an insanely low bar for reviewers or you're intentionally lowering it for the sake of perpetuating an argument that we don't need to be having. Again, even Gamespot itself acknowledged that the review was flawed by taking it down, so you're arguing for a cause that LITERALLY DOES NOT EXIST. I do not know why.
It's gamespot, they've always been unprofessional imo. Seeing this review was not shocking to me at all. I have an incredibly low bar for gaming reviews, because they're almost all complete garbage. If I need a game review I watch you-tube videos of game play and if it looks fun and I don't hear too many bad things about it, I buy it. A 6 or 7 out of 10 would be where almost all of the decent games I've ever played would fall. If i see a 10/10 review, I assume it was paid for.
I'm not arguing for any cause, I stated my personal opinion on this, had a discussion about it, and asked the developer a question and had a discussion about that. There isn't a "cause" lol.
<!--quoteo(post=2016526:date=Nov 9 2012, 07:22 AM:name=hate)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (hate @ Nov 9 2012, 07:22 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2016526"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It's gamespot, they've always been unprofessional imo. Seeing this review was not shocking to me at all. I have an incredibly low bar for gaming reviews, because they're almost all complete garbage. If I need a game review I watch you-tube videos of game play and if it looks fun and I don't hear too many bad things about it, I buy it. A 6 or 7 out of 10 would be where almost all of the decent games I've ever played would fall. If i see a 10/10 review, I assume it was paid for.
I'm not arguing for any cause, I stated my personal opinion on this, had a discussion about it, and asked the developer a question and had a discussion about that. There isn't a "cause" lol.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So just because it's been known for being ######, we gotta take it just because they haven't had standards for years? Good defeatist attitude there. No one asked for 10/10, but a 6/10 with factual inaccuracies about the price, gameplay and community? Anyone can slap a 1/10 to any game like CS:GO, Stacraft 2, Dark Souls and scream "IT TOO HARD! ###### SUX!" but that does not make it accurate, it's just an egotistical, lazy review.
Also: Creep speeds up Zerg units, infestation does not speed up Khara units.
Looks like he tested it 1v1 with a friend on an empty server, no wonder there's only 1 more image with 1 Onos in it and no marines. Not surprised at all.
But it does slow down enemy units, which is an effective speed boost for the Khaara. Check maybe, definitely not mate :p
He asked me if I have a low bar for reviewers, to which I said yes. Honestly I didn't know gamespot was EVER taken seriously. I had no idea CBS owned it. I assumed it was some privately owned "blog" of sorts, essentially. I think I've been to gamespot like three times total in my life.
<!--quoteo(post=2016533:date=Nov 8 2012, 11:29 PM:name=Onii-chan)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Onii-chan @ Nov 8 2012, 11:29 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2016533"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Looks like he tested it 1v1 with a friend on an empty server, no wonder there's only 1 more image with 1 Onos in it and no marines. Not surprised at all.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't think that's necessarily true but he did take some astonishingly bad, random screenshots. Like several of him staring at the ground or pillars in the ready room. It looks like he booted up the game, played one game while sporadically mashing his printscreen key, then wordvomited out an article at breakneck speed. That's what happens when you pay bad writers very little money to crap out middle-school-grade essays on things that they often have no interest in.
MouseThe Lighter Side of PessimismJoin Date: 2002-03-02Member: 263Members, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Shadow
edited November 2012
<!--coloro:#FFA500--><span style="color:#FFA500"><!--/coloro-->hate & co, I've merged your conversation on hate's graphical issue on ns2_veil in with the <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=123953" target="_blank">existing thread that hate had made on the topic</a>. This was because that conversation has very little to do with the main topic of this thread.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
The first thing I thought when I saw the GS review was: "I bet Primal Carnage gets a better score than this." ::sarcasm::
Primal Carnage is a simplistic low budget FPS with dinosaurs.
Well, well, it got a 6.5! Hilarious!!
I'm glad they took the original NS2 review down. <b>Everyone knows you need to play MMORPGs a significant number of hours (80+?) to do a decent review. But they see NS2 and think a couple hours in-game will do it.</b> No way, it's deeper than that. (if not so much as a veteran would like)
Mr. Neigher is a poor writer. He can't even write a good review. The 1up link is a review for the game Monday Night Combat. While the game received a very good rating from Mr. Neigher, it is writing on par with an 8th grader.
Damn www.jeuxvideo.com really enjoyed the game ( well 18/20 is a very good mark ) , they included the game in one of their show where they present a game while playing it live <a href="http://www.jeuxvideo.com/gaming-live/0003/00031743/natural-selection-2-pc-1-4-les-marines-1-2-00108057.htm" target="_blank">http://www.jeuxvideo.com/gaming-live/0003/...-2-00108057.htm</a>
Cons: Tough to learn; matches can fall into repetitive stalemates; few maps and only one mode.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> "Similarly, stalemates and final pushes that are blocked by relentless turtling can turn matches into syrupy slogs of repetition, and these games aren't generally very rapid-fire to begin with." - So very true.
<!--quoteo(post=2014789:date=Nov 7 2012, 05:34 PM:name=Temphage)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Temphage @ Nov 7 2012, 05:34 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2014789"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That is why I signed up. Alpha and beta I stayed silent. Now, you can't have a game that looks overly grey, is open to extensive untraceable hacks and hooks, struggling at 50 FPS and is stupidly complex for someone new to play.
That will be at a 2-3k average for the rest of the month, a small spurt at Christmas / New year and if UWE are lucky, if the game stays just as bad for performance as it has done the past 3 years and as stupid for new players to pick up. Good luck on keeping any more than 3k players at a peak per day; I can see it slipping to levels of 1000 peak.
And the NS1 community has not dipped since NS2 was released, I still see the same people on the Usanian and Eurussian servers. This game does not appeal to the NS1 mass you had, as you can see from complaints.
That will be at a 2-3k average for the rest of the month, a small spurt at Christmas / New year and if UWE are lucky, if the game stays just as bad for performance as it has done the past 3 years and as stupid for new players to pick up. Good luck on keeping any more than 3k players at a peak per day; I can see it slipping to levels of 1000 peak.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's at 5k+ right now even as I type this, so I would imagine it will stabilize around 5k and have peaks and valleys revolving around things like free weekends, Steam sales, big-name youtuber reviews or press sightings, etc. You're absolutely free to have your own interpretation of that graph but keep in mind your sample size is 9 days so drawing any conclusions about retention is a pure reflection of your own negativity and not at all viable.
If you want something to put a little more in perspective you might look at this:
Zooming in on a four-day section and extrapolating is pretty silly. It looks to me like it peaked around release and had a slight falloff. We can't predict what will happen from there until we have more data, but I would imagine it will stabilize before reaching 2-3k.
<!--quoteo(post=2017562:date=Nov 9 2012, 03:26 PM:name=freddie_stuter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (freddie_stuter @ Nov 9 2012, 03:26 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2017562"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That is why I signed up. Alpha and beta I stayed silent. Now, you can't have a game that looks overly grey, is open to extensive untraceable hacks and hooks, struggling at 50 FPS and is stupidly complex for someone new to play.
That will be at a 2-3k average for the rest of the month, a small spurt at Christmas / New year and if UWE are lucky, if the game stays just as bad for performance as it has done the past 3 years and as stupid for new players to pick up. Good luck on keeping any more than 3k players at a peak per day; I can see it slipping to levels of 1000 peak.
And the NS1 community has not dipped since NS2 was released, I still see the same people on the Usanian and Eurussian servers. This game does not appeal to the NS1 mass you had, as you can see from complaints.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> This convinces me how the majority of the Half Life 1 engine mods created trash communities that hate everything that doesn't manage to be both different, and exactly the same. You mustn't enjoy, or play many different games.
I see a lot of you seem to hate the numerical rating system. It's been something I have tried to stay away from in my reviews. I can't understand our internet cultures current fixation on this old system.
<!--quoteo(post=2018574:date=Nov 10 2012, 11:29 AM:name=Rerez)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Rerez @ Nov 10 2012, 11:29 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2018574"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I see a lot of you seem to hate the numerical rating system. It's been something I have tried to stay away from in my reviews. I can't understand our internet cultures current fixation on this old system.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It is to feed into this idea that the reader wants the information as quick as possible about the game. The number scheme paints a quick picture about how the reviewer feels. Personally I prefer looking at the pros/cons list if I want that kind of instant gratification from a review.
Another one from the second most popular videogame website in France <a href="http://www.gamekult.com/jeux/test-natural-selection-2-J72584t.html#pc" target="_blank">http://www.gamekult.com/jeux/test-natural-...J72584t.html#pc</a>
8/10 with team choice ( they never handed a 10 and 9 is extremely rare )
Ah maybe it didnt seem clear but it's a great score :D
7.5/10, it's a decent score, but the reasons... It feels almost as horrible as the gamespot review. some odd stuff from the review:
- First off, he calls Infestation creep. - Complains about long loading times. - Game feels dated (like a game from 10 years ago), due no extra features, game modes or lack of detailed models or animations. - No stats, unlockables or customization options, which he thinks is essential to the genre these days. - Calls the game unappealing for competitive clans due lack of clan features or streaming features. (Guess he didn't see the tournaments etc.)
Gamer.nl seems to be a lot less good these days. In the last article about NS2, they even called Natural Selection 2 a counter strike mod. xD
Yeah, he complains about a lack of customization, stat tracking, progression/unlock systems, calling the game dated because of it. As if it's negative thing. Suddenly I feel so very old, and yet I'm just in my late twenties. Are these reviewers still in high school or something? XD
well i know for a fact they only got the key last tuesday, or somewhere wednesday from Charlie, considering COD BO2 came out around the same period i can't image he played that much, and it sounds like hes a COD player.
looks like most of the comments on the site are desagreeing with the review so thankfully most ppl make up their own minds about the game.
Comments
Clearly you guys are much more active than most, and I apologize if my persistence came off as ######ish. It often does on the internet.
@swiftspear, Come on man. You know as well as I do that the right words can go a long way regardless of who says them.
With GS losing them money for quite some years now, as well as the uber negative comments, they decided to do some damage control.
Clearly you guys are much more active than most, and I apologize if my persistence came off as ######ish. It often does on the internet.
@swiftspear, Come on man. You know as well as I do that the right words can go a long way regardless of who says them.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Dude, he upswung the game's price by 20%. He called infestation "creep." You can't do that sort of thing as a professional journalist. I know games journalism is crap but if we at least pretend to hold these people to a higher standard, they wouldn't have a mandate to be so universally awful. Gamespot's own staff thought the review was bad enough that it needed to be taken down. If you don't believe us, at least believe Gamespot itself. You're acting like UWE bullied these people into censorship, which is absurd because they have absolutely no way to do such a thing.
And it says 6.0 on gamespot's search engine <a href="http://uk.gamespot.com/search/?qs=natural+selection+review&sort=date" target="_blank">http://uk.gamespot.com/search/?qs=natural+...w&sort=date</a><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Metacritic isn't an automated system, they've just yet to update it.
Nope, it won't be stuck, I know this from previous experience.
Gamespot's site is a mess of bugs, not surprised it's stuck on the search.
<!--QuoteBegin-"http://starcraft.wikia.com/wiki/Creep"+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE ("http://starcraft.wikia.com/wiki/Creep")</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Most zerg structures are effectively giant organs and draw sustenance from creep. A notable exception is the extractor. A zerg colony forms a single living creature through the interconnectivity of creep.[5] Zerg gain nourishment from the creep. Most zerg structures can only be created upon the creep. Terrans and protoss cannot build structures on creep. Terran buildings may not land on the creep, however they may lift-off. The creep will expand to fill the vacated space over the course of a few seconds.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href="http://starcraft.wikia.com/wiki/Creep" target="_blank">http://starcraft.wikia.com/wiki/Creep</a>
What about that is any different at all to how creep functions in NS2, other than that you have to drop cysts?
There's nothing wrong with that, infestation is a fun mechanic. I enjoy it. It looks ###### AMAZING. But him calling it 'creep' isn't exactly stretching it. The first mod that had anything to do with the infestation changes it into zerg creep.
You guys are coming at me like I'm being some kind of an ######, I'm not trying to defend this guy on a professional level or anything. It was a poorly done review. But getting mad about him saying it costs $5 more than it does, and calling the infestation creep, is kind of ridiculous in my opinion. I never said UWE bullied anyone.
And no getting irritated at those things is not ridiculous, you either have an insanely low bar for reviewers or you're intentionally lowering it for the sake of perpetuating an argument that we don't need to be having. Again, even Gamespot itself acknowledged that the review was flawed by taking it down, so you're arguing for a cause that LITERALLY DOES NOT EXIST. I do not know why.
I'm not arguing for any cause, I stated my personal opinion on this, had a discussion about it, and asked the developer a question and had a discussion about that. There isn't a "cause" lol.
I'm not arguing for any cause, I stated my personal opinion on this, had a discussion about it, and asked the developer a question and had a discussion about that. There isn't a "cause" lol.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So just because it's been known for being ######, we gotta take it just because they haven't had standards for years?
Good defeatist attitude there.
No one asked for 10/10, but a 6/10 with factual inaccuracies about the price, gameplay and community?
Anyone can slap a 1/10 to any game like CS:GO, Stacraft 2, Dark Souls and scream "IT TOO HARD! ###### SUX!" but that does not make it accurate, it's just an egotistical, lazy review.
Also:
Creep speeds up Zerg units, infestation does not speed up Khara units.
Checkmate.
<!--quoteo(post=2016531:date=Nov 9 2012, 07:27 AM:name=stickyboot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (stickyboot @ Nov 9 2012, 07:27 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2016531"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><img src="http://i.imgur.com/McDvv.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" /><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Looks like he tested it 1v1 with a friend on an empty server, no wonder there's only 1 more image with 1 Onos in it and no marines.
Not surprised at all.
He asked me if I have a low bar for reviewers, to which I said yes. Honestly I didn't know gamespot was EVER taken seriously. I had no idea CBS owned it. I assumed it was some privately owned "blog" of sorts, essentially. I think I've been to gamespot like three times total in my life.
Not surprised at all.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't think that's necessarily true but he did take some astonishingly bad, random screenshots. Like several of him staring at the ground or pillars in the ready room. It looks like he booted up the game, played one game while sporadically mashing his printscreen key, then wordvomited out an article at breakneck speed. That's what happens when you pay bad writers very little money to crap out middle-school-grade essays on things that they often have no interest in.
This was because that conversation has very little to do with the main topic of this thread.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
Indeed it was getting a bit offtopic and all the huge quotes with images.
Primal Carnage is a simplistic low budget FPS with dinosaurs.
Well, well, it got a 6.5! Hilarious!!
I'm glad they took the original NS2 review down. <b>Everyone knows you need to play MMORPGs a significant number of hours (80+?) to do a decent review. But they see NS2 and think a couple hours in-game will do it.</b> No way, it's deeper than that. (if not so much as a veteran would like)
Mr. Neigher is a poor writer. He can't even write a good review. The 1up link is a review for the game Monday Night Combat. While the game received a very good rating from Mr. Neigher, it is writing on par with an 8th grader.
<a href="http://www.jeuxvideo.com/gaming-live/0003/00031743/natural-selection-2-pc-1-4-les-marines-1-2-00108057.htm" target="_blank">http://www.jeuxvideo.com/gaming-live/0003/...-2-00108057.htm</a>
Very good material for new french players.
4/5 Good
Pros:
Constantly evolving matches; crazy strategic possibilities; extremely different yet well-balanced sides.
Cons:
Tough to learn; matches can fall into repetitive stalemates; few maps and only one mode.
4/5 Good
Pros:
Constantly evolving matches; crazy strategic possibilities; extremely different yet well-balanced sides.
Cons:
Tough to learn; matches can fall into repetitive stalemates; few maps and only one mode.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
"Similarly, stalemates and final pushes that are blocked by relentless turtling can turn matches into syrupy slogs of repetition, and these games aren't generally very rapid-fire to begin with."
- So very true.
That is why I signed up. Alpha and beta I stayed silent. Now, you can't have a game that looks overly grey, is open to extensive untraceable hacks and hooks, struggling at 50 FPS and is stupidly complex for someone new to play.
<a href="http://steamgraph.net/index.php?action=graph&appid=4920&from=1351872722" target="_blank">http://steamgraph.net/index.php?action=gra...from=1351872722</a>
That will be at a 2-3k average for the rest of the month, a small spurt at Christmas / New year and if UWE are lucky, if the game stays just as bad for performance as it has done the past 3 years and as stupid for new players to pick up. Good luck on keeping any more than 3k players at a peak per day; I can see it slipping to levels of 1000 peak.
And the NS1 community has not dipped since NS2 was released, I still see the same people on the Usanian and Eurussian servers. This game does not appeal to the NS1 mass you had, as you can see from complaints.
That will be at a 2-3k average for the rest of the month, a small spurt at Christmas / New year and if UWE are lucky, if the game stays just as bad for performance as it has done the past 3 years and as stupid for new players to pick up. Good luck on keeping any more than 3k players at a peak per day; I can see it slipping to levels of 1000 peak.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's at 5k+ right now even as I type this, so I would imagine it will stabilize around 5k and have peaks and valleys revolving around things like free weekends, Steam sales, big-name youtuber reviews or press sightings, etc. You're absolutely free to have your own interpretation of that graph but keep in mind your sample size is 9 days so drawing any conclusions about retention is a pure reflection of your own negativity and not at all viable.
If you want something to put a little more in perspective you might look at this:
<a href="http://steamgraph.net/index.php?action=graph&appid=4920&from=1349872983" target="_blank">http://steamgraph.net/index.php?action=gra...from=1349872983</a>
Zooming in on a four-day section and extrapolating is pretty silly. It looks to me like it peaked around release and had a slight falloff. We can't predict what will happen from there until we have more data, but I would imagine it will stabilize before reaching 2-3k.
<a href="http://steamgraph.net/index.php?action=graph&appid=4920&from=1351872722" target="_blank">http://steamgraph.net/index.php?action=gra...from=1351872722</a>
That will be at a 2-3k average for the rest of the month, a small spurt at Christmas / New year and if UWE are lucky, if the game stays just as bad for performance as it has done the past 3 years and as stupid for new players to pick up. Good luck on keeping any more than 3k players at a peak per day; I can see it slipping to levels of 1000 peak.
And the NS1 community has not dipped since NS2 was released, I still see the same people on the Usanian and Eurussian servers. This game does not appeal to the NS1 mass you had, as you can see from complaints.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This convinces me how the majority of the Half Life 1 engine mods created trash communities that hate everything that doesn't manage to be both different, and exactly the same. You mustn't enjoy, or play many different games.
It is to feed into this idea that the reader wants the information as quick as possible about the game. The number scheme paints a quick picture about how the reviewer feels. Personally I prefer looking at the pros/cons list if I want that kind of instant gratification from a review.
very lively EVE online news site
<a href="http://www.gamekult.com/jeux/test-natural-selection-2-J72584t.html#pc" target="_blank">http://www.gamekult.com/jeux/test-natural-...J72584t.html#pc</a>
8/10 with team choice ( they never handed a 10 and 9 is extremely rare )
Ah maybe it didnt seem clear but it's a great score :D
<a href="http://www.gamer.nl/review/404740/natural-selection-2" target="_blank">http://www.gamer.nl/review/404740/natural-selection-2</a>
7.5/10, it's a decent score, but the reasons...
It feels almost as horrible as the gamespot review.
some odd stuff from the review:
- First off, he calls Infestation creep.
- Complains about long loading times.
- Game feels dated (like a game from 10 years ago), due no extra features, game modes or lack of detailed models or animations.
- No stats, unlockables or customization options, which he thinks is essential to the genre these days.
- Calls the game unappealing for competitive clans due lack of clan features or streaming features. (Guess he didn't see the tournaments etc.)
Gamer.nl seems to be a lot less good these days. In the last article about NS2, they even called Natural Selection 2 a counter strike mod. xD
looks like most of the comments on the site are desagreeing with the review so thankfully most ppl make up their own minds about the game.