Adrenaline Vault Review of Victoria

[sensei]

Victoria review at Avault. 2/5 stars

His review doesn't seem as in depth as the fellow's at IGN. It's more along the lines of the Gamespot review. however, they all seem to be telling me to wait a few months and check the status of the patches before picking this game up.

 

[unmerged(22698)]

I just don't get it. Are these reviewers really that impatient/numb-skulled that they can't figure this game out? The first day I had Victoria the amount of information turned my head (and also dampened my spirits), and it seems these reviewers don't seem to get past that. They probably play one FULL Grand Campaign, then piddle around with the scenarios a bit and then write a review.

The Avault review mentions a total of zero bugs, sans CTD's. That tells me he never figured the Victoria 'system' out enough to actually see these bugs. It just means he played it just enough to get a review out. Someone needs to tell these guys this is NOT your average game to review. At least the guy at Gamespot played it enough to actually spot these bugs. Gamespot so far has the definitive review for this game. I don't agree with the score, but at least he was fair. The guys at Gamespy and IGN are unbelievable! Are these truly the professionals of the industry?

 

[Johan]

Fun review...

His opinion of the interface is the complete opposite of another review from the same day..

http://www.gamezone.com/gzreviews/r22422.htm

 

[unmerged(22698)]

As Forrest would say, "I'm not a smart man...", but it didn't take me that long to figure the interface out. It's ugly, to say the least, but once you get past the initial confusion it's very easy to navigate. The only real problem I've ran into is the need to click on the 'home' button at the top of the interface multiple times because it doesn't register the click. However, these reviewers fail to mention that you do and will learn the interface. A lot of what they say seems to act like the initial jump into the game is what Victoria is all about. "Too much depth...confusing interface...etc", all stuff that you get over with after playing the game a bit. They're basically saying, "Because it'll take you longer than normal to figure this game out, the game isn't good". Okay, great, but how about once you've figured out how to play it? Or are they assuming only the 'dyed in the wool, hardcore grognards from hell' are going to understand Victoria?

 

[unmerged(10167)]

These kind of games are hard to review. One Grand Campaign (if its even that) is certainly not enough to say the right things about a game of this magnitude. On the other hand reviewers can't play a game for weeks non-stop before they review it, they probably don't have time for it.

Overall the reviewers does a great job, sure some games are missjudged, but most of the times they are right.

I know of one game, Deux Ex, that one gaming site first trashed, then another reviewer reviewed the game cause he thought it was a realy good game. I wished sites had two reviewers for each game... cause one guy doesn't know the truth.

 

[swilhelm73]

I notice "no tutorial" is a very common complaint in these reviews.

I would imagine that much like newbies to the strategy genre tutorials are more important - for the former they don't know what they are doing, and for the latter they don't have time to work through the learning curve even though they already know the general elements common to most strategy games...

 

[unmerged(16488)]

Yeah. Everything else is patchable/understandable, but, IMHO, "NO TUTORIAL" is a huge fault.

 

[unmerged(15243)]

Well I am confounded by the reviews I've seen...

1.Confusing interface? It took me 2 hours max to figure it out (granted I'd played alot of HoI before) including parts that didn't have handy mouseover tips and I hae yet to do more than reference a couple of pages in the manual. Have not even read more than maybe 4 lines of text in it. Personally a comprehensive manual is way more important than a tutorial you will play once and only once.

2.Too fast-paced? The game has variable speeds and a pause button. It's only as fast as you tell it to be. If you're too stupid to find the + and - keys and the pause button on your kb or on the screen then you're not smart enough to use a computer, let alone review this game.

3.Bad graphics? Ok, I hate to say because this is a strategy game that it holds to lower standards than other types of games... but that's what I'm saying. It looks as good as it needs to, then it looks better still. The map views look great. The unit and goods icons look great. The menus look great.

4.No tutorial? See answer to 1.

5.Average sound effects? The game deserves a 10 on that just for the soundtrack (as good or better than HoI's). As for non-musical sound... see 3.

6.Bugs? Well all games have bugs, and Victoria has fewer than most and more than some. But unlike most companies Paradox has a very good record for patches fixing bugs and tweaking balances. No less than 5 1/2 for HOI. Other than event bugs, there are virtually none. Most games have crashes due to technical liabilities, which are much harder to diagnose and fix.

7. The reviewer on one site specifically said you could pick from "11" countries in each scenario. I don't understand this number. It is soooooooooooooooooooooooooooo below what you get if you right click on one of the flags just like it says right there on the flag picking screen (that is presuming you're not some busy reviewer who can't be bothered to read).

Personally, Victoria will recieve my vote for strategy game of the year, although it will be a tough fight with Korsun Pocket. Hopefully once the magazine reviews come out (who tended to tout HoI as an amazing game) we'll see some smarter reviewers... but I'm not holding my breath.

In a somewhat related story RT3 got a bad review on one UK website but the website had to pull the review once they found out the reviewer had only played the game for a couple of hours. When they put a new reviewer on it who spent some time actually playing the rating for the game doubled.

Maybe the review sites should make a rule. No reviewing of strategy games allowed by reviewers who have played Kampfgruppe (1987) for less than 200 cumulative hours.

-Andy

 

[Dinsdale]

Although I disagree with the Gamespot review, at least that reviewer spent time on the game. Same with FFZ's review on Strategy Informant.

It seems like too much work for many of these other reviewers to manage.

Strange, I saw a really good Pax Romana review on Games Domain, and that interface is equally difficult to fight through.

 

[Peter Ebbesen]

Fun review...

His opinion of the interface is the complete opposite of another review from the same day..

http://www.gamezone.com/gzreviews/r22422.htm

The funniest line in that review does not concern the interface, however, but multiplayer: "If you like Risk, with depth, this is a solid option." :rofl:

 

[el freako]

The funniest line in that review does not concern the interface, however, but multiplayer: "If you like Risk, with depth, this is a solid option." :rofl:

Are you sure he didn't mean the risk of trying to play peacefully when you're around

 

[Aquitaine]

I used to write for Avault (very briefly).

These are the people who thought that Matrix: Revolutions was a great movie.

I wouldn't waste my time criticizing them.

-Aq

 

[unmerged(3921)]

Maybe he meant "risk" not "Risk"? Hahahaha

Victoria as a game clearly isn't going to work for everyone. Personally I find it enjoyable. Hopefully the upcoming patches will improve the historical accuracy while retaining the fun factor.

 

[ale]

I wonder if the Gamezone reviewer played the game more than 30 minutes.

"Too fast"
"11 nations per scenario"

Eh, what?

 

[unmerged(5261)]

Maybe the review sites should make a rule. No reviewing of strategy games allowed by reviewers who have played Kampfgruppe (1987) for less than 200 cumulative hours.

-Andy

Or at least they should make sure that the reviewers actually like Strategy games.


.

 

[unmerged(16099)]

I wonder if wargamer.com is going to do a review of Victoria.


--
EnPeaSea

 

[unmerged(15764)]

I dont get why its so hard to learn to play this game i learnt most things without looking at the manual and by just spending some time playing the game. took me about a day.. avault sucks anyway.!

 

[unmerged(17599)]

Problem is, it takes more than adrenaline to play this game!

Vicky is a smashing game, and it's a shame the reviews have been so uneven. The lesson Paradox needs to learn from the reviews is this: include better documentation. It is worth providing a comprehensive manual, in the long run. Builds commercial presitige and consumer loyalty.

 

[unmerged(22698)]

And it doesn't give these reviewers a reason not to like the game. No tutorial? Bad manual? Bah, too complicated! Only die hards will like this...2/5.

 

[unmerged(11982)]

This review just clearly shows the difference between the average gamer who has never played any of the EU/HOI games and those of us who have played and loved them.

Every critiscm the reviewer made is valid and true ... from HIS perspective. And it is a perspective shared by many casual gamers or gamers who have mainly come from other genres. Many, many gamers.

Developers have to make that choice of who their target audience is going to be. The choices made re: manual and lack of tutorial IMO where mistakes in this case, it did nothing to help sales, reviews or the games audience. Us die-hards could care less, we know how to play the game and have already passed the general learning curve a long time ago but it hurt overall sales Im sure.

I hope our devs read the review and take it as constructive critiscm using it to improve future titles, a little better understanding of the audience outside their fans could have cut the negatives from that review in half easily. Such is life, live and learn huh. Keep up the good work devs and I for one will continue to support all the companies who take the time to develop games which take things deeper than "flash, boom, bang". (Even if they do make mistakes)

Myros