You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

General Discussions
Moderated by Wok, Chonaman

Hop to:    
Welcome! You are not logged in. Please Login or Register.21 replies
Rise and Fall Heaven » Forums » General Discussions » Ign 6.0!
Bottom
Topic Subject:Ign 6.0!
DoSAchilles
Conscript
posted 06-14-06 03:34 AM EDT (US)         
yet another bad review for rise and fall this is just shocking...

http://uk.pc.ign.com/articles/712/712582p1.html


'A coward's Mother Does Not Weep' Latin Proverb*

[This message has been edited by DoSAchilles (edited 06-14-2006 @ 03:48 AM).]

AuthorReplies:
tFighterPilot
Conscript
posted 06-14-06 03:37 AM EDT (US)     1 / 21       
I don't care. A game's worth is not measured by the reviews it gets.
DoSAchilles
Conscript
posted 06-14-06 03:41 AM EDT (US)     2 / 21       
all the problems he mentions can be fixed by patches...

'A coward's Mother Does Not Weep' Latin Proverb*
Dima86
Conscript
posted 06-14-06 04:59 AM EDT (US)     3 / 21       
im telling you its a conspiracy
Its a kahoots, they are all in it together.
SOMEONE IS THE DOLLAR MAN.
WHO IS THE MOLE ON THIS FORUM?!@ There must be one in every good conspiracy.

I declare a website wide mole Hunt to find the pepurtrator leaking information to those respnosible for this attrocious reputation badgering.

Fandral
Conscript
posted 06-14-06 06:26 AM EDT (US)     4 / 21       
IMO word of mouth recommendations have the greatest long term impact on a game's sales. And if the fans here are any indication, these lukewarm reviewers are going to look very foolish before long. But hey, most dissed the electric light when it first appeared. Conversion was slow but... .

[This message has been edited by Fandral (edited 06-14-2006 @ 06:27 AM).]

Breepee
Conscript
posted 06-14-06 06:57 AM EDT (US)     5 / 21       
ign, come on... that site stopped being trustworthy years ago...

RaF is a kool game, if you liked AoK, EDMW and such (and I do!)

superdroideka
Conscript
posted 06-14-06 08:11 AM EDT (US)     6 / 21       
Unfortunately, it's not only IGN that gives the game a bad rating

SUPERDROIDEKA
heflys
Conscript
posted 06-14-06 09:11 AM EDT (US)     7 / 21       
I guess IGN is an idiot to know, huh? (sigh)

I must say this is rather disappointing.

And a patch can't change core gameplay.

[This message has been edited by heflys (edited 06-14-2006 @ 09:16 AM).]

Feudal1
Conscript
posted 06-14-06 09:15 AM EDT (US)     8 / 21       
Unfortunately, it looks like he played it without connecting online and updating his game with the latest patch.

A couple of points to be made here with regards to the reviewers comments that:

Quote:

The problem wasn't necessarily with the base mechanics, though the effort was very formulaic, but with the execution. Path-finding was poor and units would get stuck on objects in the world, units had terrible threat recognition and disregarded orders to attack certain enemies with regularity, rotation of buildings for placement was clunky, ladder mechanics for sieging walls were sloppy, AI has no idea what to do about double lines of walls, line of sight isn't implemented correctly, and naval units were way too hard to dock on shore. Then there are features like unit silhouettes that just weren't included. How are you supposed to have any clue what's happening behind buildings, especially in a crowded base, when there are no silhouettes?

He must be playing a different game than I am. I have had no issues with path-finding, units getting stuck and my units disregarding orders. As for rotation of buildings for placement, it was easy to do and not clunky at all. I don't know about the AI issues with double walls, as I haven't built them (I'd rather use my resources for units). Naval units are easy to dock on shore, so no problems there. I do agree that silhoettes would be nice to have.

Quote:

Half the time, features that are there aren't much better. For instance, units are constructed as individuals but can be connected to a bigger formation. While it sounds neat in practice, it can be a hell of a time to wrestle with connecting formations together and keeping track of everything, especially since formations will break up automatically when boarding a ship or mounting a wall.

I have to disagree with this as well; formations are easy to handle, and of course a formation will break up when boarding a ship or mounting a wall. How else would such a thing be implemented, especially when mounting a wall.

Overall, a very silly and incorrect review, in a lot of ways. Unfortunately, as with other media like newspapers and network news, these reviewers can say what ever they want without anybody to counter their own flawed views.

In the end, it's about having fun. Is the game fun? YES!! Does it have some minor issues? Of course, what game doesn't? But they are minor, and certainly don't detract from the game, so try it and judge for yourself.


Currently Playing: Rise of Legends, Age of Empires III, Battle for Middle Earth II, Battlefield 2, Rise of Nations, Rollercoaster Tycoon 3, Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War
heflys
Conscript
posted 06-14-06 09:17 AM EDT (US)     9 / 21       
Units stay in formation in LOTR BFME and RTW when standing on a wall. He's stating it's tedious having to reorganize them every single time.
Feudal1
Conscript
posted 06-14-06 09:19 AM EDT (US)     10 / 21       
One additional comment regarding formations - he apparently didn't read page 11 the manual, which states:

Quote:

When you lasso nine or more units of the same type, they'll automatically be placed into a formation.

It doesn't get any easier than that.


Currently Playing: Rise of Legends, Age of Empires III, Battle for Middle Earth II, Battlefield 2, Rise of Nations, Rollercoaster Tycoon 3, Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War
heflys
Conscript
posted 06-14-06 09:25 AM EDT (US)     11 / 21       
Uhh he stated that:

Quote:

Half the time, features that are there aren't much better. For instance, units are constructed as individuals but can be connected to a bigger formation

Bossman
Conscript
posted 06-14-06 09:27 AM EDT (US)     12 / 21       
It's a good thing that formations break up on ships and walls. Because of that you can manage your troops much better and order them to different parts of the ship/wall.
Feudal1
Conscript
posted 06-14-06 09:32 AM EDT (US)     13 / 21       

Quoted from heflys:

Units stay in formation in LOTR BFME and RTW when standing on a wall. He's stating it's tedious having to reorganize them every single time.

I understand, but using control groups make that easier. For me, it just isn't an issue. I guess my point in all this is to say that the game is actually fun. A lot of reviewers seem to go into a game with the mindset of searching out every little issue, no matter how trivial, and blowing it up into something much larger than what it is. In the end, most gamers want to know if a game is fun to play, and if there are any big problems like the game crashing or high multiplayer lag.

Too much of what gets written in reviews is based on what the reviewer thinks the game should do and how it should be, not what it actually is. The statement that it's "formulaic" proves my point. I like that it's "formulaic". I enjoy the base-building, economic aspects, and constructions of the mix of units I want to take into battle. I don't like an RTS game where those aspects aren't present, and I'm forced to use a preset mix of units that I have no say in. That's why, if I was a reviewer, I would not review a game like Sudden Strike, because my review would be more negative that someone else who loves that type of game.

My final point is that I think in general, the quality of PC game reviews has fallen to a point where the majority of them are useless. A gamer is better served playing the demo and deciding for himself.


Currently Playing: Rise of Legends, Age of Empires III, Battle for Middle Earth II, Battlefield 2, Rise of Nations, Rollercoaster Tycoon 3, Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War

[This message has been edited by Feudal1 (edited 06-14-2006 @ 09:35 AM).]

GoSailing
EEH Seraph
posted 06-14-06 09:53 AM EDT (US)     14 / 21       
Bing Bing Bing Bing. Correct. Play the demo, and if you like it, play the game. As lysmichas said in a different thread (not sure which one righ tnow) Professional and hardcore gamers don't even look at the reviews, because they know that they aren't fair or correct.

"It seems to me the humour of Sails is so dry you could strike a match on it and it would be the humour that caught fire." - Friend of Old
Wisler
Conscript
posted 06-14-06 09:59 AM EDT (US)     15 / 21       
yea i never trust reviews, i just read them for entertainment until i get the game.

play the demo, if you liked it, you will like the full game even more if thats possible.

Lysimachus
Conscript
posted 06-14-06 10:20 AM EDT (US)     16 / 21       

Quote:

all the problems he mentions can be fixed by patches...

Precisely my sentiments. In my opinion, games should never be reviewed in their non-patched versions. A game should be review by its "concept"--understanding that bugs and glitches are easily remediable. Midway has already released several patches. The last was 1.09 if I remember correctly.

I'm sure they'll be releasing several more. Midway has demonstrated that they are going to continue to support us.

What really bugs me to death is the fact that after these bugs, glitches, and perhaps control issues are remedied, you can be sure that these gaming sites will not write a second review, nor up the score. Then all these readers who don't have a brain will take the reviews seriously, and the patches won't even cross their minds, nor will they even know if they're released.


~Lysimachus - Former HG Angel for Rise & Fall Heaven || Was RaFH Game Info Admin || Proud Member of HG since 1998
smccann
Noble (VIP)
posted 06-14-06 11:14 AM EDT (US)     17 / 21       
In all fairness to Dan, he got the code that everybody else got - he got the final, out-of-the-box game.

I'm still working on getting descriptions of the patches for everybody, but his biggest issues - technology, animations, graphics, effects, mission design - really aren't covered in a patch.

Needless to say, I think very few people on the forums here are willing to agree with everything he said, but I want to make sure that any suppositions anybody has about IGN's code or biases are corrected.

Gaurdian_112
Banned
posted 06-14-06 07:59 PM EDT (US)     18 / 21       
Even if the game were shit buggy, if reviewers liked it they wouldn't give it a 6.0 average score.

IMO the fact that all these great reviewers totally hated RAF is a sign that the game isn't that good.

(Though I personally thought the demo was cool)

GoSailing
EEH Seraph
posted 06-14-06 08:11 PM EDT (US)     19 / 21       
Forget the reviews... they did not play online, or even get patches that came when you registered online. They played the campaigns only, or against the AI... Also they played for like 2 hours maximum. The reviewers were FPS players, not RTS players. The reviews were, very simply unjust, unfair and poorly done.

"It seems to me the humour of Sails is so dry you could strike a match on it and it would be the humour that caught fire." - Friend of Old
heflys
Conscript
posted 06-14-06 10:27 PM EDT (US)     20 / 21       
Unfortunatly, as smcaan stated, the patch can't change much of the game code. Patches will most likely resolve balance, compatibility, and other such issues. It won't completely revamp the game.

I guess we'll gave to see what Gamespy gives it next.

GoSailing
EEH Seraph
posted 06-15-06 02:19 AM EDT (US)     21 / 21       
Yes, so it seems... Hopefully it is a fair rating.

"It seems to me the humour of Sails is so dry you could strike a match on it and it would be the humour that caught fire." - Friend of Old
You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

Hop to:    

Rise and Fall Heaven | HeavenGames