Was Warcraft 3 really any better in this regard?
Haven’t played RoL campaign but WC3 is one of the two RTS campaigns (along with Starcraft) that haven’t made me want to shave my head with a cheese grater 3 minutes in. So by that yardstick it is pretty good.
I agree however that “story” in an RTS is pretty low on my list of things to care about. But, I long ago resigned myself to the fact that a good RTS campaign was a rare surprise, not something to be expected.
You can’t really look at the score in a vacuum - it is there to summarize the review. Most of the points in the review text are valid - but its really up to the individual to decide how much each of those points actually matter. In the case of this review, he just couldn’t get over the jumbled story - how much that matters is up to you as a gamer.
SlyFrog, I think for posterity we need to know what you think a ‘bad’ game would be scored, on a scale of 1-10. I mean, at which point should you completely avoid playing the game?
I think the reviewer is being unfair about the storyline. Lame RTS stories are par for the course. I’m surprised there was no mention of the lack of an open ended “Conquer the World” style gameplay. And so what if they all but shouted out, “EXPANSION FORTHCOMING”. Like Blizzard never does that.
IMO, it sounds like the review is an indictment on the main campaign. I can’t help but feel like the reviewer played the campaign to completion, maybe played a few skirmish/mp games over e3, and phoned it in.
Absolutely. It’s one of an editor’s jobs to make sure that the text and score line up.
But since the score is derived from the play experience described in the review, the only way of knowing this is so is by referring to the text and comparing it to the score. The question is not whether the score is incorrect in absolute terms but whether the score makes any sense in reference to what the reviewer says.
For the record, I think that both Tom and Brett’s reviews read as “this is a good game”, though for different reasons. I get more dissonance from Tom’s 4.5 stars than Brett’s 7.6 score. I am as yet in no position to decide who is right or wrong.
Troy
can’t even imagine how many “numerical” review scores have gotten it “wrong” in my opinion…TO ME. How many movie reviews have gotten it “wrong”…TO ME. I don’t think it’s wrong to state one’s opinion but clearly saying the score WAS wrong over and over like there no subjectivity involved is a bit ridiculous.
I think the 7.6 is fine, along with the 9.0. They both show it is a good game from the author’s subjective points of view.
You could have spent half the amount of time reading reviews rather than trying (poorly) to defend your moronic assertion that Toddy commited a grave injustice when he gave RoL a 7.6 and I think everybody involved would have come out ahead.
Here’s a pointer: when you disagree with what a reviewer wrote, point out where they were wrong rather than posting 3000 word essays in which you try to explain why what reviewers write doesn’t matter. Here’s another free tip: if you had bothered to read the review, you would have found plenty of justification (from the reviewer’s perspective) of the 7.6 score. You might notice the other people in this thread that actually, you know, understand how reviews work disagreeing with the review. Nobody’s flaming them because they’re making sense.
yeah, like he^^ said. Based on the review, the game should get a 7.6. The problem is that the review is wrong, and the score accurately reflects the wrong review. It would have been stupid for Toddy to review the game with that text and then give it a 9.0.
Lorini
I want less SlyFrog debate, while it has been riveting, and more Tom vs. Toddy at 10 paces banter. I see Pay-Per-View in the works or at the very least a virtual circle of Qt3ers gathering around the battle to the death at sundown. (or sundown on the day Todd gets the proper keyboard)
If you say so. I think it went beyond that era, just in a different direction than Half-Life or Halo did. And if you started playing expecting that type of game, you kind of missed out on the actual game, which had more to do with a moody environment than an action-movie style plot.
I’m down with people not liking the tack it took, but to say it’s incompetent or backwards is a little much.
Are you down to stalking me now? What in the hell is your obsession with me? You seem to exist solely to pop into threads I’m involved with and post, “Here’s a tip chuckles . . .” “If you weren’t so stupid, you would have figured out . . . .”
Yeah, I know, it’s because I’m so painfully stupid that everything I post warrants it, while everyone else in the thread is a genius. And you, Ryan A, need to point this out.
Get a life. Find something to do. Isn’t Wednesday the weekly KKK rally or something? Shouldn’t you be putting on your sheet and burning crosses?
Oh good God.
Stop.
It’s all been said bef-MONSTERCLOSET
Houston, we have a positive on that orbit trajectory.
Get Ryan to stop stalking me and I’ll be happy to do so. As mentioned, he seems to enjoy looking for threads I’m involved with solely to drop in and begin frothing. I suggested some other activities that I’ve noticed he might enjoy based on his comments in his other threads.
If you went by the forum standard Oblivion would be catagorized as the worst rpg ever made, even though I think we’d all say otherwise. The problem is that far too many people are VERY particular/passionate about certain types of games and pick them apart to no end instead of just enjoying what they do well.
I certainly don’t find any rts story I’ve witnessed to be all that compelling so I don’t expect much out of that department. I enjoy Homeworld 2, but I certainly don’t feel the urge to sit there and watch the cutscenes repeatedly. I’d personally rate that sort of game more on the mechanics involved than anything else. Doing otherwise is like rating Call of Duty lower than Half Life 2 because the story isn’t as interesting to me. It’s a shooting game where I don’t expect a really in-depth rpg type story. That isn’t to say I don’t appreciate games that can do that, but it certainly isn’t standard by any stretch of the imagination.
The only time I could see bringing the story into a review for a game is when it’s just so horrid that it actually ruins some of the fun and that’s purely subjective.
But classifying someone as worst of genre X ever does not a bad game make. People who call Oblivion a bad RPG don’t always mean it’s a bad game, just a bad RPG, especiall as RPG is such a broad genre with so many people having different expectations.
Anyway, Deer Hunter sold massively and we all know it sucks, so popular opinion can go to hell :)
In the end, any review should simply represent how much fun you had with the game, because that’s what it’s all about. Some look for story, and I DO look for story in my RTS, which is why a Blizzard RTS is something I will tend to pick up, and most others fall by the wayside. If you’re not going to have story, then you’re competing with Blizzard in skirmish and multiplayer. Well, you’ve already lost multiplayer, Blizzard aren’t going to be beaten there any time soon, so your AI better be good, and when was the last time someone saw a really good RTS AI?
While ‘good ai’ is subjective, for me I can say there has never been a good AI in RTS or TBS. I think this will not happen in my life time or even until we develop truely sentient computer.
This is kind of why I do not like TBS games that much. TBS is far to slow in multi player. In single player the AI isn’t challenging unless it cheats. I do not feel satisfied beating a cheating player.
Dude. You gotta be tougher than that.