It looks like Fallen Enchantress is ready for release. I don't know what differences there are between 0.99 and 1.0 yet but it's probably safe to pass judgment.
So.....
What do you think the Metacritic average of Fallen Enchantress will be by December 1, 2012? Put in your guesses.
Here are some recent game releases to compare to.....
Dishonored 91
XCOM 89
Borderlands 2 89
Torchlight II 89
Transformers: Fall of Cyberton 79
Prototype 2 76
The Sims Super Natural 71
Retro City Rampge 70
High 70s... if I had to guess I'd say 77 or so....
I think some of FE's design decisions will irk some reviewers (such as the way research is handled). I still believe the different game systems feel a bit disjointed and the balancing is not quite there. Also magic is STILL behind MOM in terms of spell diversity...
I'm late, but I'd for 85. The game is too much a niche game to get a 90 plus score. And believe me, every single reviewer will deduct points for the game not having multiplayer. They did this already for GalCiv II and really feel Stardock should have learned and added multiplayer in 2012. I don't agree, but they'll all fall over it! I do happily pay 1$ for added multiplayer though (specifically some form of PBEM).
83 - It deserves more compared to other games, which have a 85+. But thats because of all the arguments here (mass market, niche game etc.).
I agree
Totally agree. I will say 82 as the middle point.
Niche games can have some advantage because they are generally reviewed much less so less likely to get bizzaro reviews.I think 75-80 is fair because it is a good game but not in the same league as Dishonored or X-Com in my view.
I think 75-79. Mainly due to lack of polish, otherwise 80-89.
86
That's what I think as well. The three different components of this game (4X, RPG, and tactical battles) aren't integrated well enough imo to give it the bump into the low 80's score. Beyond that, the game just lacks certain elements that could get it a +/- 90 score. Things like siege battles, more compelling factions, gameplay that doesn't bog down to everyone is at war with everyone, more interesting economic aspects, and heroes and cities that have character (right now they are all pretty much interchangeable imho, heroes and sov's can be divided up in two categories, melee and magic, cities feel even more generic).
Pretty much the above. The fundamentals are good now. I hope this game will go the same route as the GalCiv games, where by the second expansion the whole game is awesome.
I wouldn´t understand a rating between 75 - 79 and i would whole heartly disaggree. Such a rating would be ok, if all other games would be reviewed as critical as you are with FE, but thats not the case.
Everything below 80 would be a shame
80-85 range, depending on the things we couldn't see yet, like the campaign, and they bug hunting/polishing till release.
77 just because of all the bug reports and lack of ai challenge I've been reading.
Well as is with latest update I would not score it as high as CIV V. The game is better than it every was but still has some issue (weak AI, no sea units, primitive TC) I'm not currently noting bugs at this point. so I'll give it a 70 at this point. With current bugs I'd give a a 68.
Now this is just the Vanilla game. I'm afraid that it aint going to get much better than this before launch. However with modding and expansions this game will go from an Ok game to a fantastic game. Basic game engine now seem solid so I think this game has the potential to be great.
Now CIV V upon realease should not have been a 90 more like an 80 due to issues it had which God and Kings have mostly addressed. Now it is a 90 IMHO.
CIV V is a pile of garbage why even bring it up in an Elemental thread? Off Topic Off Topic Off Topic throw him to the wolves. Ban Stick alert...troll alert Danger Danger Danger Will Robinson!
78
CiV is definitely 90 with G&K
Ehm, FE will be somewhere in the low 80's but I can imagine high 80's too.
That's awfully low in my opinion. And here I thought I was one of the most negative guys here in this forum.
I would be quite surprised if the game got less than 75.
This isn't a thread about what you, Bellack, would give the game. Everyone has heard, ad naseuem, your opinions. If you think Civilization V should have gotten an 80 then that's your opinion. But it didn't. It got a 90.
This is a thread for guessing what you think the score on Metacritic will be.
What I think it should get: 87
What I think it will get: 81
I would be really surprised to see any review less than 4 stars.
I'm not sure on what basis it's not, at least, a 4 star game. I'd really want to know how a reviewer could justify less than 4 stars.
Sometimes this forum sounds too much like the zealots at Civfanatics. It's a real turn off.
Agreed. It should score higher, but I'm afraid it may not be approachable enough, appeal to a large enough of an audience, and lacking in wow/bling/usability. But, they've still got the campaign to release, which could add some of that, plus updated documentation.
Last I heard, Toby was having a blast writing all of that documentation. Right, Toby?
I've been on Civfanatics for years and my take is that a lot--maybe a large majority--of the hardcore players won't touch Civ 5. Firaxis reduced a chess-like game to a checkers-like game, which makes it a waste of time for fans who want a strategy fix. I haven't played G&K but the problems were in the core design of the game, so it's unlikely to be fixable without starting from scratch.
Anyway, back on topic, why is everyone so glum? Galactic Civilizations 1 & 2 got great reviews. Assuming that the quality is the same, shouldn't EFE get similar treatment?
Now 65-70.
Most of us that have played the game and supported StarDock have seen how far this game has come since WoM and are basing our assumptions of "nothing less than a 4 star game" on the amount of improvement between FE and WoM and not of the game itself. I can easily imagine reviewers looking at FE and saying things like, "No siege battles, no multiplayer, tactical combat not fleshed out, balancing still needs a little work, seems like the game components aren't gelled together yet... after some updates and expansions this could be a great game. StarDock has come a long way from WoM but is still running down the home stretch before the finish line. I give it 3.5/5 stars."
Reviewers today I think put too much emphasis on how easy the game is to get into. Niche games with steep learning curves? Dominions 3 - 82, Distant Worlds - 78. SotS Prime never got above a 79 even with the expansions (Prime -68, BoB - 79, MoC - 75). All of those games I consider to be strategy classics worthy of space on anybody's HDD... yet only Dom3 cleared the 80 Metacritic bar by a measley two points. FE should get around an 85, but I will not be surprised to see it hovering around 75-79.
My guess is, if the early-game is easy and manageable, (or its easy to learn how to play), then it will have a rather high rating due to its unique identity among games, and there are actually a lot of cool ideas in the game.
If the early-game is too hard or difficult to learn, then it will go waaay down from what the game "should" have earned... Right now I am mostly concerned about the early game for Elemental's release.
After release, I will be concerned somewhat equally about the whole game, mostly because I want more!
Sincerely~ Kongdej
79
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
