You want the good news or the bad news?
Oh, you want the good news right? Of course. You want that? You want that first anyway? I’m not brave enough to do it the other way.
Well, the good news is that next week, I’ll be traveling to California to visit with the gaming media to talk about Elemental: Fallen Enchantress and Sins of a Solar Empire: Rebellion. So hopefully we’ll be able to get some coverage and I won’t lie to you, WE WILL NEED YOUR HELP.
I say that because if you’re reading this, you are familiar with the whole Internet thing. Here’s how it goes:
Website X will write a preview of Fallen Enchantress.
First comment will be “Elemental sucked, they should give up on it! I doubt this is going to make any difference”
Hopefully, you, reading this, have played the beta and hopefully you agree that, Fallen Enchantress is turning out to be very very good, especially when you consider our current estimated target release date is this Fall (think of where War of Magic was at this stage). So we’re going to need all the help we can get to get the word out that Fallen Enchantress is turning out really well.
Because without positive confirmation from actual people playing the beta, it is, as GamersWithJobs’s podcast recently put it, “doomed”.
Now, the bad news…
There won’t be a beta update this week. The team is trying to get the build ready for Beta 3 which is what I’ll be showing next week. When I get back, we’ll be putting it together for you guys. It’ll have the dramatically changed Quendar and Gilden factions. We think you’re really going to like what we’re doing with faction differentiation and can’t wait to get your feedback.
Might the reviews trend positive, if that's been the players trend? Having been posting rave review en-masse? From the extreme of a "reviewer" basing their "review" off as little as an afternoons read of a fan forum. To pedantic reviewers, militant reviewers, drama queens, copy sellers, etc For the lot of them in general, I think if a significantly sized population of the fan base, is reacting with pleasure to the new game, the previews well tend to be kind.
Obviously, if we thought FE today was amazing we'd release it. But it's exactly where we'd expect it to be at this stage -- promising but lots of work to do.
Complete agreement.
Given that FE will start out with at least 1 strike against it because of Elemental, I'd hold off previewing until FE is significantly better than the 'usual' preview state of a game. That would do a great deal to change the narrative of the preview story from a 'out of the ashes of the mess that was Elemental comes FE' to a 'wow this FE game is still in beta but plays better than most released games' spin.
And that significantly better preview state would include things such as Tasunke's excellent 'meaningful decisions' items.
I don't think there will be a difference in a preview now vs. this summer or even fall. The things that need work in the game are only visible with in depth play. A preview shows off the spell effects, art designs, and demonstrates graphics. I don't see many of those things changing, so there is no reason to wait for the preview. I would turn the detail way up thought and use as much ground cover as possible. People will especially want to see the tile art and all the different things we can do in the game.
I think it's more about preparing the ground for when the game is released than showing its beta capabilities. If the game is aiming at a september launch, then it is important to start installing it into people's heads now, so they are alerted and aware of what's on the horizon.
There are very, very few games of this kind. And even fewer that are good enough. So I think it's guaranteed it will get all the attention from the group of gamers it's targeting to. And when it does, we come in to comment on what we've seen so far. For my part, I'll contribute to what I can to help cement the notion that FE is not WoM.
This is quite encouraging. Given that I really enjoy the game at its current state...with 6 months of additional development, this game could be quite stellar.
So, you inferred what I said, got it wrong, and then tried to deride me? *golf clap*
I am not contrasting games, I am simply stating that using Metacritic's scale, those are the numbers I would give those respective titles. I am making no claim to the validity of any other reviewers' scores, nor contrasting other games' scores with each other. We can play the "game x got score a, so that means game y should get score b" all day, but then we'd both be idiots.
Since Metacritic was mentioned, I was hoping a beta player's prospective scores would give you some feedback. That is all I meant with my post. Obviously no score should be given at this time, but I thought that a current snapshot, such as the one I provided, would give you some indication as to the relative balance among WoM, FE as it stands today, and FE as I believe it will be in the near-future.
Currently I would give it a 6.5 out of 10 for many of the same reasons that have already been mentioned in this thread. However it is only Beta 2 so there is plenaty of time to get the game into shape.
WOM would be a 1 out of 10 or a 10 out of 100
All comments like this do is make the forum appear to be full of trolls. Look out l33t you are.
WOM's review average is 53 out of 100. That is a fact. If people feel like they have to share a rating of a beta game to the public, they should stick with using a number that means something.
IF WOM is a 53 THEN FE BETA .86 is easily a 75 IMO.
Someone trying to retro-review WOM using their own personal review system at this point is just an exercise in narcissism.
I agree Civ and FE are two different animals in the same kingdom. Games like HoMM, AOW:SM and MOM are more like what FE should be compared to.
I find ratings and scales interesting.
But they're also useful if there's a point of reference.
For example, you could just get away from the number game entirely and go with actual game comparisons.
http://www.gamerankings.com/browse.html?site=pc&cat=59&year=0&numrev=1&sort=0&letter=&search=
So here you have 93 all the way down to 79.
And then from the bottom up you have:
Dark Avatar is higher rated than Twilight of the Arnor? Methinks some Drengin got in and threatened those voters.
When will GalCiv and GalCiv2 be on GOG?
So, according to that list, expansions usually make the game worse...
Why FE currently is a comparative 2:
-improve factions/leaders to be as significant as Civ4 leader/nation: +1 to score
-improve city differentiation to be as significant as Civ4's (where you have production cities, specialist cities, etc. whereas with FE cities are pretty much the same absent forest/streams, and especially the same as outposts make placement near resources less important): +1 to score
-improve economy (Civ4 will crash your economy and research if you expand too fast, you can fund your empire with conquest, etc.): +1
-improve tech tree (Civ4 allows great variability of what to tech depending on strategy, how the game plays out, etc.): +0.5 (FE already has made some improvement here)
-improve balance: +1
-improve UI (Civ4 is amazing, shows much at a glance, can delve in to see great detail, etc.): +1
-improve importance of city placement: +0.5 (similar to 'city differentiation but some difference so only 0.5)
-overall 'feel' (how the game parts all fit together, 'polish', replayability, different victory conditions being... well, different, etc.): +1
-improve AI (yes, Civ4 SoD wasn't good AI but if one delves into Civ4 AI you'll see how complex it is in what it takes into account and reacts to): +1
Artwork, moddability, etc. already are good and so no improvement needed here.
Add the above to the current 2.0 and it sums to 10.0
@Bellack's "I agree Civ and FE are two different animals in the same kingdom. Games like HoMM, AOW:SM and MOM are more like what FE should be compared to."
Again, I'm not saying Civ4 and FE are the same 'animal', I'm using Civ4 as the 'gold standard' for a TBS in 2012 (heck, as FE has 2 of Civ's best people working on it the comparison is especially applicable). Frankly, today's AAA title hopefuls should be aiming to exceed Civ4 BtS, to boldly go beyond... I'm merely hoping for FE to be its equal, thus a 10 and not a Spinal Tap 11.0 will suffice.
I don't approve of people getting personal in their reactions but I do tend to filter out opinions that aren't constructive. That is, there's not much point in trying to satisfy someone who thinks WOM was a 1 or that FE is a 2.
There's a lot of feedback to go through so I can't spend a lot of time reading every post. Hence, it does help indirectly when a user makes it clear that they're not the intended audience. I can't make someone who thinks FE is a 1 or a 2 happy. That would be a waste of time. I can, however, do something for the majority who think FE is already at a 6 or 7 and bring it up to an 8 or 9.
I think FE is a 6 or a 7. If only I could get a 64 bit version that could make use of all my available memory that would put it up to an 8 or 9...
I think its interesting that people are talking as if the game score is based entirely on game mechanics. However Art + Music + Sound FX are all important too. These things add immersion and personality to the game. I hope FE does a good job in this area, though it is also the most subjective and least scientific part of the stupid numerical game rating system.
Reminds me alot of the Political Machine. Some players are all or nothing with their point system and others give out points based on a percentage.
If FE is a 2 for Mr. Danger, he must be withholding any points until the given area is completed.
He also seems to have the common Ci4itis, a disease of the eyes and memory.
Game scores are so open to interpretation even with finished games - I'm sometimes sceptical about them tbh.
Take Shogun and Shogun 2 on Brad's list for example; according to that list Shogun 2 is only 2% better than the original - that's outright nonsense.
The new game vastly improves on the original in every way and I know that I wouldn't be able to go back to the original now - yet the game has a whopping 87%! OK maybe at the time it was released the game earned that score, but it has vastly depreciated over time I think.
Without a clear scoring criteria these scores often seem meaningless to me - they are just some guy expressing an opinion at one particular time. What exactly are the criteria for a strategy game that falls in the 70 something % band compared to something that is in the 80% band? Reviewers seem to just express an opinion on a case-by-case basis rather than applying a set of standards to each grade.
I see this thread is still throwing out wildly divergent 'scores' for FE based on unknown criteria (apart from to the respective posters) and I'm wondering if the thread is going to continue down this cul-de-sac. TBH I'm more interested to know more about these big changes for the Quendar and Gilden - Brad, could you share a little more about this with us given that the betas not out this week or is it all hush hush?
Very nice!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As far as ratings go, I think that list is very reasonable ... only thing I find odd is variance in sequels, but probably because the sequel is held to a higher standard or something (probably related to how expensive the sequel is too).
As far as 'fun factor' it would probably go something like this (for me) ...
FFH2 (bts mod)
Fencing (the sport)
BTS
Shogun Total War 2
Gal Civ II expansions
Civ IV
Medieval Total War 2
--> I'd place Assassin's Creed and all good RPGs here
Rome Total War
acing a test (school)
Skiing/Snowboarding
Kendo (the sport)
original Gal Civ II
Rock Concerts
other sword related stuff
(1st Medieval and 1st Shogun total war)
Settlers of Catan
a really cool lecture (school)
---> all good racing games and FPS, with the original Mario Kart and Halo 2 at the top
Europa Universalis III, Victoria II, and Anno 2070
Minecraft
Dwarf Fortress
Civ V
Civ III
Master of Magic
(Age of Wonders? haven't played it yet, but early estimate places it here)
Starcraft and Starcraft II campaigns
Fallen Enchantress 0.86
Swimming (recreationally)
earlier Anno games
HOMM3
HOMM4
---> most JRPGs and all good Hack n Slashes
Starcraft and Starcraft II multiplayer
---> Good fighting games
Red Alert Series
---> Good point and click games
Connect 4
Chess
Checkers
Tag
Hide and Seek
Disciples II
E:WOM
Disciples III
---> Most RTS games
4-square
Kickball
Volleyball
Charades
Pictionary
the rare actually decent/cool trivia game
----------
lots of other stuff
---------
most trivia games
standing in a line
banding my head against a wall
New iterations are usually judged more harshly than the original.
Either that, or they are judged on a new set of standards. Each year the standards are a little higher, and FIRSTS get a lot of originality points.
The original Shogun was a masterpiece of originality (the first total war game) and deserves its place imho
There's a big difference.
For example, my previous post listed a number of fairly specific things that I'd like to see improved. Was that not constructive in your opinion? Or does my 2.0 rating (not on a metacritic scale but my own Civ4 BtS scale) trump that?
Filtering out unconstructive posts is wise. Filtering out constructive posts that are not as favorable as you'd like is another matter.
Some folks would think that holding FE to a Civ4 BtS standard shows the belief that you are capable of matching the 'gold standard' for RTS games, and would take that as a compliment.
Then again, as you're likely ignoring my posts, I guess I'm talking to the wind... Still, I spent my $50 a few years ago on Elemental, so it's my dime and my time to 'waste'.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
