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
SOASE: Rebellion is currently 82. FE is already better than SOASE. If they just released the beta as-is, no new content, no campaign, 85-87.
The campaign and the extra content that they're holding back from release makes it impossible to predict.
If the campaign is entertaining and the new content is quality stuff, 90-95.
If the campaign is buggy and the new content underwhelming, 75-79.
75 metascore, because enemy player AI is no match for a human player still. (I wish the world difficulty was set to insane by default, that way reviewers probably wouldn't find out )
60 userscore, because metacritic is full of zero-score-review trolls.
For me, it's a solid 85 with potential to grow even higher.
I think I speak for many here when I say, what are you talking about?
You must be one hell of a player. I have a 5/1 loss/win ratio on ridiculous in .992
The one win was so scummy that it does not really count (Altar, started sheltered by Markin and Tarth, abused maps and henchmen, and still barely made it)
I expect to bring this to 1/1, but no higher. I do not think insane is even possible without finding a combo that's abusive enough to require nerfing.
Another stardock game.
Lot of ambition.
Lack of polish.
Just like Demigod this will never feel finished.
average reviewscore will probably be around 7.0
What is nice about the prediction thread is that we will get to remember who predicted what.
The reviewers will play the game at the default difficulty tho, not ridiculous. Even if they are made aware that the AI is better at higher difficulties, they will probably not go over challenging, since that's where the AI is playing at it's best while still not 'cheating'. And on challenging, your win/loss ratio would be way better than 1/5, i bet.
As far as I know and from what the ingame tooltips state Challenging is the highest difficulty using all the AI code and the higher ones just add mass cheating to the AI's features.
Which is a better way to do it than most games.
I really think the AI is pretty good, hope it gets better, but I only think this when I compare to other games, and when I notice how difficult it is to manage heroes - just right in this game.
Sincerely~ Kongdej
75%, maybe 80%. There's good things in FE, but quite a few mechanics work at odds with each other. And some design decisions are downright questionable.
Most of these could be modded away, but it would kill the AI.
As for what I heard you should stop questioning the AI as much, Frogboy almost promised to work with the AI and with modders after release to make it more competent in mods.
If that's the case, I will revise my judgement when it happens. But for now, my statements are correct and I am judging the game as it will be released.
Ya, metascores don't take modding into account along with a list of other important game features. But the expansion will probably get a boost from the mods of FE. I still say, all things being equal, FE deserves a 90 in comparison to the quality of the recent game's scores. Metacritic has been less critical in the past couple of years.
Hmmm, I actually have XCOM and dishonored, and I don't think FE is at this level yet...
My prediction would be 82%
Because they crash a lot, lack replayability or both? I have both. Good solid games. Much better production values than FE. Take away XCOMs cinematic flair and there's very little to it and it's not really fun to play more than one time through.
I can crash XCOM regularly and have big UI issues when trying to move the people. Camera is rather annoying in that aspect. I'm not saying I don't enjoy XCOM, but in terms of stability of the program FE is at that level. For game-play fun, well this is very difficult to determine and depends on the player. I enjoy FE and XCOM, but I find myself putting down XCOM to play another round of FE more often. It will come down to the view of who is testing and what they are looking for in a game.
I haven't played dishonored, but that game doesn't entice me. So I couldn't judge correctly the meta-score or criticized the content of the game.
FE has done exactly what I have expected from this style of game. I expect it to improve over time with expansions and updates, but out of the box it is rather fun. If you judge the game for the game it is great, but if you judge the game for the features you desire in a tatical game, then there needs to be work done. In a pure 4x game in all aspects, then there is some work to be done. In the RPG aspect of the game, then there is work to be done. But from the abstract view, the tatical battles are not supposed to take a lot of time from the other parts of the game. From the RPG point of view it is not meant to be fully fleshed out with all details displayed, but more of an abstract form of a quest. Similar to those found in like the Buck Roger series a long time ago. The 4x part of the game is precisely what I expect from this style of game.
In no means am I saying all these aspects are perfect, nor am I lowering the bar for stardock. The AI does function within the game well and I am getting a challenge playing the game on challenging. I'm not a hard-core gamer and I'm not a casual gamer. I'm the gamer in between and I find that this game is extremely fun to play. It gives me something new each time I run the game and this is extremely desirable.
I'm going to say mid to high 60's, with the game receiving accolades for its ambition and getting very harsh and well deserved criticism for what will be called an uneven mix of RPG and RTS. They will get this impression due to the uneven flow of the game, causing champions/spells/monsters/soldiers seem extremely overpowered relative to each other at different points in the game.
This was, of course, a disgustingly obvious truth in MoM. It's also one that we're generally not going to acknowledge on this thread, given the game preferences of those on this thread. Today's game critics are a different story, however.
91
Heart says 80s, head says 70s.
Ya, the RTS part is so poorly mixed it shows up nowhere in the game whatsoever.
Nice trollin.
Wrote an entire explanation of how I'm not trolling... then just before I hit send I realized...
I meant TBS, obviously.
Well then that's different then. Troll accusation rescinded.
Well good, we can check in back with you when the game gets universal 4 out of 5s or better because the reviewers aren't insane.
User score of 7.1 (out of 10) thanks to some super low ratings, only 18 in so far. No critic reviews shown yet. They should show median instead of average, would cut down on the influence of fan boys and trolls alike.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
