How many pageviews do you generate with a mediocre-scoring review of a game that most people have never heard of in a genre that your readership (allegedly) doesn’t like?
Plus, the review exposes the game to a lot of players.
A lot of players who, according to you, don’t like that sort of game. I don’t necessarily agree with that assessment of Gamespot’s readership–I’m just going off what you said.
It’s how I stumbled upon Europa Universalis, I read a bad review of it but picked up the game anyway.
So does Gamespot’s audience like these sorts of games, or not? Because you say they don’t, but then use a whole bunch of examples in which they do, apparently in spite of the efforts of Gamespot’s writers’ ironic attempt to downplay such games because they think the readers don’t like them.
Like I said, I don’t think it has anything to do with it either way. Obviously Gamespot thinks their readers (or at least a segment of them) dig this sort of game–otherwise they wouldn’t bother reviewing them.
However, I doubt that GameSpot would give the game to Bruce or Tom or anyone else who they thought would be wildly off the opinion of the readers.
Bruce and Tom both review all sorts of obscure strategy stuff for Gamespot, and often give scores that are way off the opinion of the “average” (and here I’m using your “average” = "readers who don’t dig obscure, complex TBS games) reader.
Ben, if GameSpot doesn’t have the review, someone else will.
Yes, the review exposes the game to a large audience. Why do you insist on making a generalization (that most wouldn’t be interested) into a firm fact (that NONE would be interested)?
Oh right, you’re just being nitpicky-anal. I’ll end my involvement in this discussion right here then. The game got a score it deserved.
I know. But according to you, Gamespot’s readership isn’t interested in that sort of game anyway. So what difference does it make if some other site scoops Gamespot on the review?
Yes, the review exposes the game to a large audience. Why do you insist on making a generalization (that most wouldn’t be interested) into a firm fact (that NONE would be interested)?
I’m not–I thought that was what you were doing. What I think is this: a segment of Gamespot’s readership is interested in that sort of game (or Gamespot thinks so, at least, otherwise they wouldn’t review that sort of game), and the review is aimed at them. The review isn’t skewed down because Gamespot was afraid that the majority of the Quake-loving masses would see a high score tacked onto an inscrutable game with primitive sound and graphics and take up arms in anger. If that were the case, then you wouldn’t see them giving high scores to stuff like Combat Mission (9.2) and Korsun Pocket (8.6). The review is skewed down because Jason simply didn’t care for the game.
I think its fucking hard as shit, because the documentation is ass and the feedback you get on/from the game’s mechanics is limited.
And while I am not Kasparov of the TBS scene, I am decent at all of the other ones I have ever played. Recent examples, I could beat Civ3 vs all King AIs and GalCiv on Intelligent/Bright. Both of those games were easier in general…but still. The rules were made much more clear in both games and the feedback you got from the game itself was much more thorough and useful.
Meanwhile, 10+ games into Dominions and I have one win versus all easy AIs. I still have no idea what makes for a good magic strategy and I am only recently getting a handle on combat tactics.
olaf
edit: And yes I am bitter. Losing on easy, repeatedly, sucks.
Maybe those review sites were suffering from the same inverse relation between intention/action my zebra had that made me quit playing that stupid ass game (hurling fireballs on my temple and villagers, and when I’d zoom in on him, he’d goofily click his heels and say, “Your creture wants to be kind and generous”).
Regardless of the score you think the game deserves, I disagree with those who think Dominions II was 2003 GOTY at the very least on the grounds that the tutorial (that most people need to learn to play the game) was written by a third party and isn’t included. It’s a great game, but people who say the game is easy to pick up are ignoring comments like the quote above, and are starting to sound a bit like the “sticky” MOO3 posts referenced in another thread.
Also, if you consider Geryk’s walkthrough part of the game, it feels a bit like reviewing a good game after a really important patch.
If a game is excellent but has a lousy manual, how much should that count against it? Dom2 is probably the best TBS I’ve ever played, once you know how to play it. The unit/combat graphics suck, the sound sucks, the manual sucks times ten. In fact, the only presentational elements that don’t suck are the ones that weren’t done by Illwinter–the maps, and the music (sorry Johan!).
Despite that, Dom2 is an awesome game, a must-have for any TBS fan as far as I’m concerned. To me, those gameplay elements count for a lot more than the graphics, sound, or even the manual. Could a game be GOTY even though it’s very hard to learn? I don’t see why not, especially since GOTY is an inherently comparative category (i.e., if everything else that comes out that year is crap, a mediocre game could be GOTY). Is Dom2 the GOTY for 2003? I dunno. There were some excellent games in 2003, including KOTOR and my personal favorite, Planetside. (BF1942 and NOLF2 were 2002, right?)
No, we’ve not gotten that bad yet. Remember, Dominions 2 isn’t a steaming pile of shit we’re trying to pass for a golden chalice. It’s just a really good TBS (and one of the best games of 2003), no more, no less.
I used Geryk’s guide and had absolutely no problems. I didn’t much care that the manual didn’t walk me through a tutorial. I just went to Bruce’s link, followed the instructions, and learned the damn game.
I’ve lost on easy too, Olaf. It’s a game that takes – get this – practice! Every nation caters to a different playstyle… for example, I lose horribly with Jotunheim, but can really kick it with R’lyeh (and to a lesser extent, Ermor).
And always remember the power of the right-click. Often you’ll get plenty of explanations from that little button.
Getting away from Jotunheim has helped me too, actually.
And, I wasnt bitching about losing on easy. I was bitching about losing on easy over and over and over again. Obviously some of that is my fault, I mean, if I was better at the game I wouldnt be getting my ass handed to me. But, like I said its not like I am a twitch gamer or some kind of newcomer to the TBS genre. I love TB games. I am a diehard TB guy. I play almost all of them, and have been playing them on the computer since Empire.
So to me, the game is way underdocumented and requires too much trial and error to figure out how things work. Even with the great community resources like Bruce’s walkthrough and the various stickies/links/FAQs/etc you can find at the Shrapnel forums.
Don’t worry, as soon as you figure out a power strategy or two you’ll see that the computer doens’t react at all to counter it. You can just keep cranking out the same invincible ice devils with equipment X and Y and walk all over them. Or an assassin spell/item combination that will never lose, and you can just kill every computer commander on the map.
