Empire Total War, Again

[grumbler]

QUESTION:  Why do game review sites consistently give buggy messes score of "OMG 150/100 GREATEST GAME EVOR!!!!!111"? It only encourages game companies to continue to release unfinished products.

Because the magazine is financed by the game companies' advertising dollars, so the editors would rather piss off readers than companies.  The striking difference between reviewer and gamer scores probably is making the reviewers squirm, but they don't make the decisions.

Frankly, I don't believe any ratings from any "professional" game reviewers.

[Caliga]

Honestly I kind of thought of this as I was posting it, but I still wanted to make the post anyways (egoism?) 

[Josephus]

QUESTION:  Why do game review sites consistently give buggy messes score of "OMG 150/100 GREATEST GAME EVOR!!!!!111"? It only encourages game companies to continue to release unfinished products.  It is the same as if Roger Ebert saw only one reel of a movie and still gave it thumbs up and four stars without any clue what the second would be like. 

Because these game companies advertise on their sites. Or the reviewers have become chummy with the developers. Or the reviewers don't really play but base their review on the press kit.

I'm convinced that the reviewers and game companies are in bed together.

[Caliga]

Well, I assume that all game reviewers look like that Sadie chick from YouTube, so I'm sure you're right.

[Faeelin]

QUESTION:  Why do game review sites consistently give buggy messes score of "OMG 150/100 GREATEST GAME EVOR!!!!!111"? It only encourages game companies to continue to release unfinished products.  It is the same as if Roger Ebert saw only one reel of a movie and still gave it thumbs up and four stars without any clue what the second would be like. 

Ad money, one assumes.

Heh, I must have been one of the last people to have a PC gamer subscription, and I cancelled it over this issue.

[Tamas]

I agree with all of you regarding professional reviewers, but I would also like to note that it takes a while to realize in case of ETW that, for example, campaign AI is passive as crap and etc. If I was to only play like an hour with it and write my review, it would glow as well.

[Caliga]

Also, I played the demo and I don't think the graphics (in either land or naval battle mode) are as OMG-time-to-shoot-a-massive-load amazing as everyone else seems to think, and my system can handle the demo on close to max settings.

[DisturbedPervert]

Or the reviewers don't really play but base their review on the press kit.

I was reading a review of a demo of a turn based fantasy game today on Shacknews.com, Elven Legacy.  The first version of the article was describing a RTS game, and threw in a few pictures and random commentary, but nothing in depth at all.  Then when it became obvious to commenters that he hadn't even played the game, he edited the article so it talked about a turn based game.   

[viper37]

To be honest about the reviewers, some of them did say the game was buggy.
Take Gamespot for example, on the first page of the review you can read this:
                                                       The Bad                                                                                                         

•                                          An array of artificial intelligence issues                                     
•                                          Numerous bugs and performance hitches.                                   

Really, it was our fault to buy it so soon, in a way.
I thought the bugs were fixed seeing there was already 2-3 patchs out when I bought the game, but I'm still disapointed for buying it so soon.  I should have waited a year.

[Eochaid]

The only reviewers I really trust are you guys (and my IRL friends obv. )

Kevin

[Josephus]

The only reviewers I really trust are you guys (and my IRL friends obv. )

Kevin

To be honest, though, the early reviews on this site (actually, the other Langusih) were quite positive. Can't remember whom we have to blame.

[MadBurgerMaker]

Dear All,

Today's update is very short. We're finishing the testing of the patch at SEGA's in-house QA and verifying the weekends results with our beta group. Provided they are content we should be able to sign the patch off for general release and distribute it tommorrow evening (28/4/09) around 1900 GMT. Naturally if there are any unforseen problems this might move a little, but it's looking strong at the moment.

We're currently writing up the full changelist which we'll include with the patch, so you'll all be able to see the full extent of the problems addressed and features added/tweaked.

Today saw the regular SEGA/CA annual conference take place at which we discussed Empire's future and the future of the TW series in general.

I appreciate today's update isn't technical in nature, as hopefully, all this information will be released tomorrow evening.

Kind regards,
Kieran

Edit:   This reminds me.  I thought a major reason behind doing this thing through Steam was so they could release small, regular patches, etc?  The only thing it actually seems to be for is to force me to put the game in a folder that I don't want it to be in.  I guess it also cuts out some mouse clicks from the patching process, so hooray for that too.

[viper37]

Edit:   This reminds me.  I thought a major reason behind doing this thing through Steam was so they could release small, regular patches, etc?  The only thing it actually seems to be for is to force me to put the game in a folder that I don't want it to be in.  I guess it also cuts out some mouse clicks from the patching process, so hooray for that too.

oh, compared to their previous games, they have had smaller patches and they were distributed more often
IIRC, with Rome and Medieval II, we had one big (500mb) patch for the game, one for the expansion.

The problem is that they released this game while there were still known bugs (CTDs), they practically admitted that.  They should have pushed back the release for one more month, or released a 64bit version of the game.  It was hinted that with this patch, those with 32bit OS will have some modifications to do to their system files.

[MadBurgerMaker]

oh, compared to their previous games, they have had smaller patches and they were distributed more often
IIRC, with Rome and Medieval II, we had one big (500mb) patch for the game, one for the expansion.

The problem is that they released this game while there were still known bugs (CTDs), they practically admitted that.  They should have pushed back the release for one more month, or released a 64bit version of the game.  It was hinted that with this patch, those with 32bit OS will have some modifications to do to their system files.

RTW was patched something like 4 or 5 times from release to BI.  M2TW was only 2 or 3 before Kingdoms.  Shogun and the other MTW, I could never get to work for some reason.   

And yeah...this game is a piece of shit even when compared to the other pieces of shit they shoved out in the past.  In addition to being crap, I am also forced to install some program that I don't want so that their piece of shit game will "work."  This game has been patched something like 4 times now through the wonders of Steam, but what difference does it make if the game is still garbage until (hopefully) this latest "normal" sized update that has taken a "normal" amount of time to release fixes it?

In other words:  WTF CA??

[viper37]

I checked and you are right   M2TW was patched twice before Kingdoms, the 1.3 patch was just for compatibility with MP for Kingdoms.

The rest... I don't disagree.  I'm just saying that so far, their track record on patching the game is better than in the past.  The game was unusually buggy for such a big company, and the AI... well, the tactical AI is better than in past games for land battles, but the strategic AI seems brain dead.

And something will have to be done about those weird DoW.  Prussia declaring war to the Hurons?  Poland declaring war against Louisiana?  Wtf?