<!--quoteo(post=2016251:date=Nov 8 2012, 06:15 PM:name=Squeal_Like_A_Pig)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Squeal_Like_A_Pig @ Nov 8 2012, 06:15 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2016251"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->No one at UWE contacted Gamespot, as far as I know. They must have pulled the review solely based on the public outcry from the community.
We know the game is far from perfect, and fully expect reviewers to not give it a perfect score, but we certainly prefer them to spend more time with the game and put in a bit more effort then this guy had done, since that is, you know, their job.
--Cory<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So did NS2HD not start an argument in their comment section like he said he was going to then?
<!--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.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=2016263:date=Nov 9 2012, 01:26 AM:name=hate)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (hate @ Nov 9 2012, 01:26 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2016263"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So did NS2HD not start an argument in their comment section like he said he was going to then?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Maybe he did, but I think there's a difference between commenting as a private person vs. contacting them directly as an UWE official employee. Comments are biased anyways...
Certainly there are legitimate criticisms that can be made of NS2, and he made some. However, he completely failed to note two major mitigating factors:
1. This is an indie game done on a limited budget, and sold at an indie game price. 2. It has a somewhat steep learning curve and so it takes an decent investment of time in order to start enjoying it.
NS2 is hardly at "DOTA" levels of learning curve though. Like others have said, it appears that he didn't put much time into the game. When I first played NS1 I was very much on the fence whether I liked it or not, especially with the mostly melee side aliens. That's very unintuitive to someone who has only played traditional FPS games before. If I had stopped at that point I might have given NS2 a "meh" rating as well. But I kept at it, it clicked, and here I am 10 years later.
6/10 review is harsh, and he completely failed to justify it.
<!--quoteo(post=2016294:date=Nov 8 2012, 06:50 PM:name=maesse)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (maesse @ Nov 8 2012, 06:50 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2016294"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Maybe he did, but I think <b>there's a difference between commenting as a private person vs. contacting them directly as an UWE official employee</b>. Comments are biased anyways...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, not really. If it was Flayra or Cory that made that forum post, would you be thinking the same thing?
<!--quoteo(post=2016322:date=Nov 9 2012, 02:07 AM:name=hate)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (hate @ Nov 9 2012, 02:07 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2016322"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->No, not really. If it was Flayra or Cory that made that forum post, would you be thinking the same thing?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes, I don't see the problem. The comment section is meant for opinion.
Edit: Maybe you're thinking more about the "join me" aspect, which didn't even occur to me. "We can start a fire, toast some marshmallows, and chant slogans." sounds pretty peaceful to me, actually :P
Like I said, I honestly don't care one way or another what he did, I think the dude is great. NS2HD is what got me to buy this game, he's funny, and he's usually very professional. I just think that if he DID contact gamespot to get the review removed, then UWE needs to own it. I'm gonna be playing the game regardless.. I might come across harsh on the forums but it's mostly just because I love the game and I want the few problems it has to get fixed, so it can go from just a good game, to a GREAT game. Which it totally has the potential to be.
Like I said, I honestly don't care one way or another what he did, I think the dude is great. NS2HD is what got me to buy this game, he's funny, and he's usually very professional. I just think that if he DID contact gamespot to get the review removed, then UWE needs to own it. I'm gonna be playing the game regardless.. I might come across harsh on the forums but it's mostly just because I love the game and I want the few problems it has to get fixed, so it can go from just a good game, to a GREAT game. Which it totally has the potential to be.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Corey already said UWE did not contact gamespot. It was me and a few other loyal gamers. Can a admin please lock this thread it is getting off topic now.
I'm not that positive on NS2 yet, but that review was pretty slap-dash.
NS2 took forever to load a map the first time I joined a game, but after that, it loaded faster than most Source-engine games (even after a reboot).
As for looking dated: if anything, I think UWE went a little crazy with shader effects.
Though I guess the game does look pretty dated if you set <i>all</i> the special effects to low (e.g. cheap infestation, no bloom, no atmospherics, etc).
Like I said, I honestly don't care one way or another what he did, I think the dude is great. NS2HD is what got me to buy this game, he's funny, and he's usually very professional. I just think that if he DID contact gamespot to get the review removed, then UWE needs to own it. I'm gonna be playing the game regardless.. I might come across harsh on the forums but it's mostly just because I love the game and I want the few problems it has to get fixed, so it can go from just a good game, to a GREAT game. Which it totally has the potential to be.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hugh posted but people had already found the article and begun commenting long before he chimed in. The negative comments were happening organically based on an absolutely awful article, and it's a little pedantic to keep hammering on Hugh for being "immature" at this point. Gamespot's senior editor chose to revoke the article of his own free will, and he wouldn't have done that if Gamespot didn't agree that their freelance reviewer jumped the shark on this one. Even if UWE had contacted Gamespot, they are under no duress to take down an article that they feel is legitimate. Since they did take it down, it's because they agreed that it had major problems.
Gamespot itself has been fairly positive towards NS2 and if I remember correctly gave it some tentatively positive coverage in beta, so my guess would be that review was an oversight/mistake that Gamespot corrected of its own volition.
<a href="http://uk.gamespot.com/natural-selection-2/forum/ns2-team-answering-questions-29314377/" target="_blank">Stryan (NS2HD) Did make a forum post on game spot about this though</a>
<!--quoteo(post=2016537:date=Nov 9 2012, 07:33 AM:name=DJPenguin)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (DJPenguin @ Nov 9 2012, 07:33 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2016537"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->i don't suppose anyone saved/screenshotted the review did they? i want to read it again lol.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's till here if you have the original link, just no score: <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>
<!--quoteo(post=2016546:date=Nov 9 2012, 01:37 AM:name=Onii-chan)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Onii-chan @ Nov 9 2012, 01:37 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2016546"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It's till here if you have the original link, just no score: <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><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
o man. that was even more painful the second time around. thanks for that.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Rough around the edges isn't necessarily a bad thing, and there's something to be said for the jerry-rigged feel of Natural Selection 2's gameplay and graphics<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh god. I missed that on the first review. I don't get what he's talking about on the graphics stuff.. the game is gorgeous. It's got an amazing aesthetic and the graphics are better than they need to be to get that across.
I had to re-read that review a couple of times the first thing that strikes me aside from the lack of actual researched content, is that they actually paid money to the one who wrote the review for such a poorly structured and thoughtout review which. Whether or not NS2 deserves the score of 6/10 due to it not being like its predacessor, design flaw, balance or technical issues going purely by the review it could have been a game about aliens and marines riding around in golf carts trying to out run Charles Darwin.
The guy who wrote the article is more a literary scholar than he is a gamer. You'll notice about 4+ SAT words used in the article that aren't necessary when <i>reviewing a video game</i>. He makes sure to follow the rule of three and is way too attentive to how he's writing than what he's writing. He only manages to outright lie twice, giving the incorrect price of the game and insinuating that the alien commander can directly give alien subordinates commands. Every "fact" he has past that is due to owning a poor computer, having a moody disposition, and being unable to realize that nobody "grinds" against a learning curve. The only thing gamers "grind" are number-related things like experience and levels.
Anyway, I didn't know game reviewers could be contracted! Seems like a fun job.. when you do it right.
Gamespot says they pulled the review, but it still is affecting metacritic, showing up as a 78 on steam. You know I really don't care about metacritic, but when it could be scaring away players... not good. I'm not here to debate whether or not the review was good (GS pulled it, so it obviously wasn't).
Oh, and hey. The user score on GS is 90. Interesting.
I know this is an arbitrary review... but can anyone post some screenshots showcasing the games graphics? Just venting some annoyance here.
Dear god the amount of fanboyish butthurt around here is kinda astounding...
Is it a good review? Nope certainly not, the guy got quite a few things wrong but some of the things had an ounce of truth to it. NS has always been notorious for it's steep learning curve, Charlie and UWE aimed to make this learning curve less harsh with NS2.
And imho they failed to accomplish this with NS2. No, Youtube video tutorials do not cut it, certainly not if you strive to deliver an "AAA" experience (another of UWE's goals for NS2).
Blaming the players or going "well i didn't have a problem" is just evading the actual problem, because right now NS2 suffers from the same one as NS1 did: You either love it or you hate it, there is no middle ground and that's directly related to the steep learning curve.
And yes, NS2 looks just as good as BF3... it should at least deserve a 11/10 score! Please less fanbyoish butthurt and some more self-reflection. Pretending the game is perfect and does not have any problems at all, is not helping anybody. Sometimes you gotta take the bullet and acknowledge "Well this certainly could have been done better (and maybe it will)".
With a proper tutorialization this reviewer might have given the game a more fair shot. Without it, his review represents the experience of quite a few people trying to get into the game and failing, as the game is making it hard for people not familiar with the NS universe and gameplay.
As such even this bad review delivers a hint of constructive insight as to where problems and issues might be. But i'm looking forward to the new review, hopefully it will go into details about gameplay as those also tend to lessen the learning curve for new players.
Yes, we're all "butthurt" as you so eloquently put it, because complaints about a tutorial was the only thing that got us the 6/10. Not the BS and indifference to his job of playing a damn videogame.
Are you kidding me? We have games that hold your hand down the only linear path these days, and you pretend like it's some sort of standard to have everything succintly wrapped for you? Grab a mic and interact with the other live humans playing.
<!--quoteo(post=2015789:date=Nov 8 2012, 03:18 PM:name=elodea)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (elodea @ Nov 8 2012, 03:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2015789"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Oh, those were seriously your points? Ok then, this is getting deeper into this issue than i initially wanted to go but here it is. This is why you were wrong. Remember we are talking about <b>factual errors</b>. For an example of a review that actually had alot of factual errors, read this <a href="http://www.somethingawful.com/d/truth-media-reviews/truthmedia-review-natural.php" target="_blank">http://www.somethingawful.com/d/truth-medi...iew-natural.php</a>
No error here - this does happen. Infact, this isn't even a universal <b>factual assertion</b> at all but a statement of his experience.
Load times are long. You agree yourself. Whether its only for the 'first match' or not does not make the statement of load times being long <b>false</b>. Who is to say you only play one map every sitting?
This supposed 'factual error' is based on such tortured logic i don't even know where or how to begin. He did not make a universal factual assertion. He simply complained about pubstomping, skill mismatches and the lack of a skill-graded matchingmaking system. This isn't factually incorrect. It happens, and player composition does not necessarily have to change 'for every match'.
So basically, you were grasping at straws, only managed to come up with 3 points and they were all wrong.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think the other guy got tired of spelling it out for you, which is understandable.
The inacuracy of this review mainly lays in the lack of research. The review is more biased than objective. First of all the reviewer complained about long loading times which made it seem as though it would take 5 minutes to load every time there's a map switch which is FALSE. The reviewer also chose to focus on only the negative sides of the game which happen rarely (like bad commanders) and refused to focus on any positive side of the game. His review is based of perhaps one round of gameplay which is not enough to make a proper review. So basically the reviewer didn't spend any time learning about what makes NS2 so great and instead he decided to tell everybody about 1 round of game that he played and how it didn't go well and simply focused on all the bad.
Why you ask having an objective review for such an awesome game is so important? Fine, I'll spell that out for you too. Because I think it's not only fair to the NS community and the developers, but it mostly would be fair to people reading the review, because the reader could in fact enjoy NS2, but the review is misleading the reader into not even trying the game. Myself and many others would like to see the NS community grow. Why you ask? The bigger community is, the more servers there will be to play on, more mods will be made for the game, and more money in the developers pockets which would motivate them to make the game I love even bigger and more enjoyable.
<!--quoteo(post=2015692:date=Nov 9 2012, 04:39 AM:name=Mango)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Mango @ Nov 9 2012, 04:39 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2015692"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Most games don't even have tutorials. That is a pathetic reason to give a game a bad review. If you want tutorials go to youtube.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yeah it shouldn't really be expected for a budget game to have a full set of training maps (TF2 didn't for years and that was a Valve game!). However, I don't think the guy you quoted was saying it was a huge deal. A bunch of training maps like Starcraft 2 has would be nice to have at some point. I haven't looked at the modding tools but couldn't someone make their own tutorials, if they had the inclination to do it? People did it with the SC1 editor and a lot of them were really helpful. If the game doesn't have fully working bots yet that would be a big obstacle to implementing stuff like that, I wouldn't blame UWE for focusing on other issues with the game first if that were the case. It'd be a big job. <!--quoteo(post=2015738:date=Nov 9 2012, 05:32 AM:name=CrushaK)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CrushaK @ Nov 9 2012, 05:32 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2015738"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The video tutorials as idea are not bad, the execution is. Specifically do they run like crap in Steam's browser overlay for some reason. I usually get fluent Youtube videos there, but the NS2 ones run like on half framerate, i.e. with so much stuttering that it's not worth to watch.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I ended up copy/pasting the url into my browser and not watching it with the ingame one. The workshop loads very slowly as well, I have no idea if that is Valve's problem or UWE's though.
<!--quoteo(post=2016977:date=Nov 10 2012, 01:35 AM:name=SjN)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SjN @ Nov 10 2012, 01:35 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2016977"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I really didn't want to get back into this issue, and my initial intent was never to start a back and forth debating the finer points but i think i need to correct what you seem to perceive i was saying. <!--QuoteBegin-Elodea+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Elodea)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If you don't agree with the review and the judgements made, there's no reason to go on a crusade. I thought it was incredibly unprofessional for UWE PR to purposefully incite forum users to start flaming the comments section on the review.
I keep seeing people saying he made gross factual errors yet all i see is an error on pricing. <b>Aside from this single error, he really doesn't lie nor maliciously misrepresent NS2</b>. It isn't really even a review per say but a statement of opinion and personal judgement of the game. That it affected metacritic goes to show once again how silly that system is anyway - <b>did we all forget that what has, and will continue to drive ns2 is word of mouth? Crappy reviews are just that, crappy</b>.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> It was a ridiculously bad review, that much was clearly obvious - you don't need to tell me this. A badly written review has some level of negative effect on sales (I think the effect is probably pretty negligible when it comes from only one source). This is known. I'm not trying to defend the review nor the reviewer, merely voicing my opinion that this went a bit out of hand.
Whether he said 'creep' instead of 'infestation' or 'commander' instead of 'command chair' etc. is totally beyond the point - we're just picking at language for the sake of it when we know his intended meaning. The level of flaming that went on was ironically counterproductive and served to no end in reflecting well on the ns2 community.
<a href="http://uk.gamespot.com/natural-selection-2/forum/ns2-team-answering-questions-29314377/" target="_blank">http://uk.gamespot.com/natural-selection-2...tions-29314377/</a> <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Just to clarify, try not to be hard on Eric Neigher -- he seems to be afflicted by some form of lasting, traumatic brain damage. This sort of thing is no joke, so I think we all just need to be kind and patient, and hope that he can find the help that he so clearly needs.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hopefully it all makes more sense now. That's it from me.
The only point that he had which really carried any water was the load times question. Because before the last patch it DID take forever to precache a new map. FOREVER. But they fixed that. And that, in my mind is worth maybe -0.5
Tutorial...derp. Would it be useful to have an interactive tutorial? especially for comms? yes. There is a reason that Blizzard makes them.
Would it be VERY useful to create a tech tree info-graphic available on the main site? YES!
For example, I had to find out quite by accident that I could upgrade whips only once they were mature... I thought something was bugged before that. In fact, the only reason I knew I could do it at all was because I saw someone else use them. I was like? WHAT?! since when can they bile bomb?!
But that isn't reason enough to tank the score... again by any more than 0.5.
IMO just setting up some audio with some positional and other types of triggers would be enough of a tutorial...
ex. you start a scenario as a skulk. A voice over tells you you can move around and walk on ceilings, etc... it explains about res nodes, starts dropping cysts, etc... tells you where to move to by dropping an expansion notification at some other location.. tells you to how to go gorge and has you heal the hive... etc.
<!--quoteo(post=2016765:date=Nov 9 2012, 11:54 AM:name=Fappuchino)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Fappuchino @ Nov 9 2012, 11:54 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2016765"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Yes, we're all "butthurt" as you so eloquently put it, because complaints about a tutorial was the only thing that got us the 6/10. Not the BS and indifference to his job of playing a damn videogame.
Are you kidding me? We have games that hold your hand down the only linear path these days, and you pretend like it's some sort of standard to have everything succintly wrapped for you? Grab a mic and interact with the other live humans playing.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes it is a standard, like it or not but NS2 failed to accomplish this goal which had been one of the Main goals that NS2 was supposed to do better than NS1. UWE wanted to reach a mainstream audience with NS2, that's why we have the FPS focus and toned down importance of the RTS aspect, that's why Charlie referenced CoD again and again. And the only way to do that is by delivering a somewhat decent and interactive tutorial or making the overall learning curve smooth. Heck even Chivalry: Medieval Warfare managed to put something half decent in their game. Leaving the tutorialization to popups and watching youtube videos just does not cut it for such an complex game.
And please notice how i agreed that the review was lackluster overall, but the guy hit a pretty valid point with his complaint about a lack of tutorial. If the game would give people an easier time to engage into it he would have maybe gotten into it. But i still think that the guy represents a certain part of the gamer population and how they would/will react to the game.
<!--quoteo(post=2017120:date=Nov 9 2012, 09:35 AM:name=rebirth)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rebirth @ Nov 9 2012, 09:35 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2017120"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Yes it is a standard, like it or not but NS2 failed to accomplish this goal which had been one of the Main goals that NS2 was supposed to do better than NS1. UWE wanted to reach a mainstream audience with NS2, that's why we have the FPS focus and toned down importance of the RTS aspect, that's why Charlie referenced CoD again and again. And the only way to do that is by delivering a somewhat decent and interactive tutorial or making the overall learning curve smooth. Heck even Chivalry: Medieval Warfare managed to put something half decent in their game. Leaving the tutorialization to popups and watching youtube videos just does not cut it for such an complex game.
And please notice how i agreed that the review was lackluster overall, but the guy hit a pretty valid point with his complaint about a lack of tutorial. If the game would give people an easier time to engage into it he would have maybe gotten into it. But i still think that the guy represents a certain part of the gamer population and how they would/will react to the game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I never read a publishers review complain about tutorials except for this freelancer. That is just pushing the line. Almost all my games have no tutorials to begin with and some are from AAA companies. I find this argument to be very silly and besides if I want tutorials I always go to youtube where I can hear the commentary and see the video how to's. This is just plain silly to keep talking about the lack of tutorials. Which in UWE case has tons of youtube video tutorials. This game is not rocket science.
The review is bad, because the reasoning is pretty terrible. But that also goes for the other reviews I think as they are not as clear in their reasoning either.
What happend to the reviews that actually went into the details and provided detailed sub-reviews of every aspect of the game? maximazing profits?
There is a thread in the modding forum about a community project to add bots, Flayra wanted a tutorial for commanding but didn't have time to make bots and hoped the community could make one in time for launch. So there you go, at least they know it's a problem? They tried with the videos. I watched some of them.
Comments
We know the game is far from perfect, and fully expect reviewers to not give it a perfect score, but we certainly prefer them to spend more time with the game and put in a bit more effort then this guy had done, since that is, you know, their job.
--Cory<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So did NS2HD not start an argument in their comment section like he said he was going to then?
<!--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.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Maybe he did, but I think there's a difference between commenting as a private person vs. contacting them directly as an UWE official employee. Comments are biased anyways...
1. This is an indie game done on a limited budget, and sold at an indie game price.
2. It has a somewhat steep learning curve and so it takes an decent investment of time in order to start enjoying it.
NS2 is hardly at "DOTA" levels of learning curve though. Like others have said, it appears that he didn't put much time into the game. When I first played NS1 I was very much on the fence whether I liked it or not, especially with the mostly melee side aliens. That's very unintuitive to someone who has only played traditional FPS games before. If I had stopped at that point I might have given NS2 a "meh" rating as well. But I kept at it, it clicked, and here I am 10 years later.
6/10 review is harsh, and he completely failed to justify it.
No, not really. If it was Flayra or Cory that made that forum post, would you be thinking the same thing?
Yes, I don't see the problem. The comment section is meant for opinion.
Edit: Maybe you're thinking more about the "join me" aspect, which didn't even occur to me. "We can start a fire, toast some marshmallows, and chant slogans." sounds pretty peaceful to me, actually :P
Like I said, I honestly don't care one way or another what he did, I think the dude is great. NS2HD is what got me to buy this game, he's funny, and he's usually very professional. I just think that if he DID contact gamespot to get the review removed, then UWE needs to own it. I'm gonna be playing the game regardless.. I might come across harsh on the forums but it's mostly just because I love the game and I want the few problems it has to get fixed, so it can go from just a good game, to a GREAT game. Which it totally has the potential to be.
Like I said, I honestly don't care one way or another what he did, I think the dude is great. NS2HD is what got me to buy this game, he's funny, and he's usually very professional. I just think that if he DID contact gamespot to get the review removed, then UWE needs to own it. I'm gonna be playing the game regardless.. I might come across harsh on the forums but it's mostly just because I love the game and I want the few problems it has to get fixed, so it can go from just a good game, to a GREAT game. Which it totally has the potential to be.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Corey already said UWE did not contact gamespot. It was me and a few other loyal gamers. Can a admin please lock this thread it is getting off topic now.
NS2 took forever to load a map the first time I joined a game, but after that, it loaded faster than most Source-engine games (even after a reboot).
As for looking dated: if anything, I think UWE went a little crazy with shader effects.
Though I guess the game does look pretty dated if you set <i>all</i> the special effects to low (e.g. cheap infestation, no bloom, no atmospherics, etc).
Like I said, I honestly don't care one way or another what he did, I think the dude is great. NS2HD is what got me to buy this game, he's funny, and he's usually very professional. I just think that if he DID contact gamespot to get the review removed, then UWE needs to own it. I'm gonna be playing the game regardless.. I might come across harsh on the forums but it's mostly just because I love the game and I want the few problems it has to get fixed, so it can go from just a good game, to a GREAT game. Which it totally has the potential to be.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hugh posted but people had already found the article and begun commenting long before he chimed in. The negative comments were happening organically based on an absolutely awful article, and it's a little pedantic to keep hammering on Hugh for being "immature" at this point. Gamespot's senior editor chose to revoke the article of his own free will, and he wouldn't have done that if Gamespot didn't agree that their freelance reviewer jumped the shark on this one. Even if UWE had contacted Gamespot, they are under no duress to take down an article that they feel is legitimate. Since they did take it down, it's because they agreed that it had major problems.
Gamespot itself has been fairly positive towards NS2 and if I remember correctly gave it some tentatively positive coverage in beta, so my guess would be that review was an oversight/mistake that Gamespot corrected of its own volition.
It's till here if you have the original link, just no score:
<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>
<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><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
o man. that was even more painful the second time around. thanks for that.
Oh god. I missed that on the first review. I don't get what he's talking about on the graphics stuff.. the game is gorgeous. It's got an amazing aesthetic and the graphics are better than they need to be to get that across.
Anyway, I didn't know game reviewers could be contracted! Seems like a fun job.. when you do it right.
Oh, and hey. The user score on GS is 90. Interesting.
I know this is an arbitrary review... but can anyone post some screenshots showcasing the games graphics? Just venting some annoyance here.
Is it a good review? Nope certainly not, the guy got quite a few things wrong but some of the things had an ounce of truth to it.
NS has always been notorious for it's steep learning curve, Charlie and UWE aimed to make this learning curve less harsh with NS2.
And imho they failed to accomplish this with NS2. No, Youtube video tutorials do not cut it, certainly not if you strive to deliver an "AAA" experience (another of UWE's goals for NS2).
Blaming the players or going "well i didn't have a problem" is just evading the actual problem, because right now NS2 suffers from the same one as NS1 did: You either love it or you hate it, there is no middle ground and that's directly related to the steep learning curve.
And yes, NS2 looks just as good as BF3... it should at least deserve a 11/10 score! Please less fanbyoish butthurt and some more self-reflection.
Pretending the game is perfect and does not have any problems at all, is not helping anybody. Sometimes you gotta take the bullet and acknowledge "Well this certainly could have been done better (and maybe it will)".
With a proper tutorialization this reviewer might have given the game a more fair shot. Without it, his review represents the experience of quite a few people trying to get into the game and failing, as the game is making it hard for people not familiar with the NS universe and gameplay.
As such even this bad review delivers a hint of constructive insight as to where problems and issues might be. But i'm looking forward to the new review, hopefully it will go into details about gameplay as those also tend to lessen the learning curve for new players.
Are you kidding me? We have games that hold your hand down the only linear path these days, and you pretend like it's some sort of standard to have everything succintly wrapped for you? Grab a mic and interact with the other live humans playing.
No error here - this does happen. Infact, this isn't even a universal <b>factual assertion</b> at all but a statement of his experience.
Load times are long. You agree yourself. Whether its only for the 'first match' or not does not make the statement of load times being long <b>false</b>. Who is to say you only play one map every sitting?
This supposed 'factual error' is based on such tortured logic i don't even know where or how to begin. He did not make a universal factual assertion. He simply complained about pubstomping, skill mismatches and the lack of a skill-graded matchingmaking system. This isn't factually incorrect. It happens, and player composition does not necessarily have to change 'for every match'.
So basically, you were grasping at straws, only managed to come up with 3 points and they were all wrong.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think the other guy got tired of spelling it out for you, which is understandable.
The inacuracy of this review mainly lays in the lack of research. The review is more biased than objective. First of all the reviewer complained about long loading times which made it seem as though it would take 5 minutes to load every time there's a map switch which is FALSE. The reviewer also chose to focus on only the negative sides of the game which happen rarely (like bad commanders) and refused to focus on any positive side of the game. His review is based of perhaps one round of gameplay which is not enough to make a proper review. So basically the reviewer didn't spend any time learning about what makes NS2 so great and instead he decided to tell everybody about 1 round of game that he played and how it didn't go well and simply focused on all the bad.
Why you ask having an objective review for such an awesome game is so important? Fine, I'll spell that out for you too. Because I think it's not only fair to the NS community and the developers, but it mostly would be fair to people reading the review, because the reader could in fact enjoy NS2, but the review is misleading the reader into not even trying the game. Myself and many others would like to see the NS community grow. Why you ask? The bigger community is, the more servers there will be to play on, more mods will be made for the game, and more money in the developers pockets which would motivate them to make the game I love even bigger and more enjoyable.
Hopefully it all makes more sense now.
Yeah it shouldn't really be expected for a budget game to have a full set of training maps (TF2 didn't for years and that was a Valve game!). However, I don't think the guy you quoted was saying it was a huge deal. A bunch of training maps like Starcraft 2 has would be nice to have at some point. I haven't looked at the modding tools but couldn't someone make their own tutorials, if they had the inclination to do it? People did it with the SC1 editor and a lot of them were really helpful. If the game doesn't have fully working bots yet that would be a big obstacle to implementing stuff like that, I wouldn't blame UWE for focusing on other issues with the game first if that were the case. It'd be a big job.
<!--quoteo(post=2015738:date=Nov 9 2012, 05:32 AM:name=CrushaK)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CrushaK @ Nov 9 2012, 05:32 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2015738"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The video tutorials as idea are not bad, the execution is. Specifically do they run like crap in Steam's browser overlay for some reason. I usually get fluent Youtube videos there, but the NS2 ones run like on half framerate, i.e. with so much stuttering that it's not worth to watch.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I ended up copy/pasting the url into my browser and not watching it with the ingame one. The workshop loads very slowly as well, I have no idea if that is Valve's problem or UWE's though.
I really didn't want to get back into this issue, and my initial intent was never to start a back and forth debating the finer points but i think i need to correct what you seem to perceive i was saying.
<!--QuoteBegin-Elodea+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Elodea)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If you don't agree with the review and the judgements made, there's no reason to go on a crusade. I thought it was incredibly unprofessional for UWE PR to purposefully incite forum users to start flaming the comments section on the review.
I keep seeing people saying he made gross factual errors yet all i see is an error on pricing. <b>Aside from this single error, he really doesn't lie nor maliciously misrepresent NS2</b>. It isn't really even a review per say but a statement of opinion and personal judgement of the game. That it affected metacritic goes to show once again how silly that system is anyway - <b>did we all forget that what has, and will continue to drive ns2 is word of mouth? Crappy reviews are just that, crappy</b>.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It was a ridiculously bad review, that much was clearly obvious - you don't need to tell me this. A badly written review has some level of negative effect on sales (I think the effect is probably pretty negligible when it comes from only one source). This is known. I'm not trying to defend the review nor the reviewer, merely voicing my opinion that this went a bit out of hand.
Whether he said 'creep' instead of 'infestation' or 'commander' instead of 'command chair' etc. is totally beyond the point - we're just picking at language for the sake of it when we know his intended meaning. The level of flaming that went on was ironically counterproductive and served to no end in reflecting well on the ns2 community.
<a href="http://uk.gamespot.com/natural-selection-2/forum/ns2-team-answering-questions-29314377/" target="_blank">http://uk.gamespot.com/natural-selection-2...tions-29314377/</a>
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Just to clarify, try not to be hard on Eric Neigher -- he seems to be afflicted by some form of lasting, traumatic brain damage. This sort of thing is no joke, so I think we all just need to be kind and patient, and hope that he can find the help that he so clearly needs.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hopefully it all makes more sense now. That's it from me.
Tutorial...derp. Would it be useful to have an interactive tutorial? especially for comms? yes. There is a reason that Blizzard makes them.
Would it be VERY useful to create a tech tree info-graphic available on the main site? YES!
For example, I had to find out quite by accident that I could upgrade whips only once they were mature... I thought something was bugged before that. In fact, the only reason I knew I could do it at all was because I saw someone else use them. I was like? WHAT?! since when can they bile bomb?!
But that isn't reason enough to tank the score... again by any more than 0.5.
IMO just setting up some audio with some positional and other types of triggers would be enough of a tutorial...
ex. you start a scenario as a skulk. A voice over tells you you can move around and walk on ceilings, etc... it explains about res nodes, starts dropping cysts, etc... tells you where to move to by dropping an expansion notification at some other location.. tells you to how to go gorge and has you heal the hive... etc.
Are you kidding me? We have games that hold your hand down the only linear path these days, and you pretend like it's some sort of standard to have everything succintly wrapped for you? Grab a mic and interact with the other live humans playing.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes it is a standard, like it or not but NS2 failed to accomplish this goal which had been one of the Main goals that NS2 was supposed to do better than NS1. UWE wanted to reach a mainstream audience with NS2, that's why we have the FPS focus and toned down importance of the RTS aspect, that's why Charlie referenced CoD again and again. And the only way to do that is by delivering a somewhat decent and interactive tutorial or making the overall learning curve smooth.
Heck even Chivalry: Medieval Warfare managed to put something half decent in their game. Leaving the tutorialization to popups and watching youtube videos just does not cut it for such an complex game.
And please notice how i agreed that the review was lackluster overall, but the guy hit a pretty valid point with his complaint about a lack of tutorial. If the game would give people an easier time to engage into it he would have maybe gotten into it. But i still think that the guy represents a certain part of the gamer population and how they would/will react to the game.
Heck even Chivalry: Medieval Warfare managed to put something half decent in their game. Leaving the tutorialization to popups and watching youtube videos just does not cut it for such an complex game.
And please notice how i agreed that the review was lackluster overall, but the guy hit a pretty valid point with his complaint about a lack of tutorial. If the game would give people an easier time to engage into it he would have maybe gotten into it. But i still think that the guy represents a certain part of the gamer population and how they would/will react to the game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I never read a publishers review complain about tutorials except for this freelancer. That is just pushing the line. Almost all my games have no tutorials to begin with and some are from AAA companies. I find this argument to be very silly and besides if I want tutorials I always go to youtube where I can hear the commentary and see the video how to's. This is just plain silly to keep talking about the lack of tutorials. Which in UWE case has tons of youtube video tutorials. This game is not rocket science.
What happend to the reviews that actually went into the details and provided detailed sub-reviews of every aspect of the game? maximazing profits?
no, that is not the score, that is the IQ of the reviewer!
the score was 85/100.