My review of CK2 is finally posted. You can find it here.
Summary: 5 stars, Buy it!
It also earned our Seal of Excellence.
Summary: 5 stars, Buy it!
It also earned our Seal of Excellence.
AVault's Review of CK2: Buy it!
- Thread starter Secret Master
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Thanks for posting it here. Well-written as always.
About the end of a war:
The simple answer was that it wasn't simple to include a simple explanation...
About the end of a war:
The simple answer was that it wasn't simple to include a simple explanation...
Had some problems accessing the pages - I think it was something to do with Adobe flash - but eventually they came up.
Your point on the manual is a good one, but I blanch to think of the task of capturing what needs to be explained in a single work - even in PDF. Maybe break it up in discrete guide/FAQs such as "Chancellor's Handbook", "Spymastery," "Art of Warre" , "Stewardship", "Successful Succession", and "Laws of the Realms" which would also make it easier to update and check for updates.
Your point on the manual is a good one, but I blanch to think of the task of capturing what needs to be explained in a single work - even in PDF. Maybe break it up in discrete guide/FAQs such as "Chancellor's Handbook", "Spymastery," "Art of Warre" , "Stewardship", "Successful Succession", and "Laws of the Realms" which would also make it easier to update and check for updates.
Haha, a CK2 moderator reviewing CK2 on AV. So much for independent jornalism
Not that I won't buy it - I know the game rocks, loved the demo & intend to play CK2 for a good long time to come. But the conflict of interest struck me as funny. Does that happen a lot at AV btw, people involved with games being their reviewers?
Not that I won't buy it - I know the game rocks, loved the demo & intend to play CK2 for a good long time to come. But the conflict of interest struck me as funny. Does that happen a lot at AV btw, people involved with games being their reviewers?
I am a independent reviewer and should have a review up next week.
It will only be what you already know, its a brilliant game!
Honsou.
It will only be what you already know, its a brilliant game!
Honsou.
The original EU 3 had a really thorough manual and an excellent strategy guide. Things will certainly change with a patch, but it was those two things that allowed me to get into Paradox games. I would love to have an actual decent manual and a strategy guide as well. I am glad the review harped on that, it is definitely my biggest gripe for the game. The manual is honestly next to worthless. I also did not like how space was used for silly one liners instead of actual explanations. I want a manual, not a book of one hundred and one jokes.
Haha, a CK2 moderator reviewing CK2 on AV. So much for independent jornalism
Not that I won't buy it - I know the game rocks, loved the demo & intend to play CK2 for a good long time to come. But the conflict of interest struck me as funny. Does that happen a lot at AV btw, people involved with games being their reviewers?
What are the interests involved? Is there any actual conflict of interest? If so, is it disclosed? Is it improper in some way? Ask those questions first.
Haha, a CK2 moderator reviewing CK2 on AV. So much for independent jornalism
Not that I won't buy it - I know the game rocks, loved the demo & intend to play CK2 for a good long time to come. But the conflict of interest struck me as funny. Does that happen a lot at AV btw, people involved with games being their reviewers?
I actually don't have moderator powers here in the CK2 forum. But I understand where you are coming from.
This issue has come up before. Some people were very unhappy about my review for EU:Rome, despite the fact that everyone involved (my editors and the Paradox staff) knew the score. The thing is that we are a small and independent review outlet and we are all volunteers over at the vault. I'm basically the only PC strategy game guy we have on staff at the moment, so sometimes the choices look like this: you can have the game reviewed by a console gamer who's never played a PC strategy game in his life, or you can have me review it. We've tried having non-PC gamers review strategy titles before, and let's just say that it didn't work out very well. They aren't stupid, but someone with no experience in a genre just isn't going to get certain things. And two weeks reviewing a new game is not the time to learn an entire tradition in strategy gaming. After all, I've played strategy games since Avalon Hill was the only way to really fight WWII. You folks that jumped on the bandwagon in the 90s with your fancy PC gaming are Johnny Come Lately to the strategy game scene. In fact, I'm sure if you dig around enough, you can find an tabletop Europa Universalis, from long before Paradox sent the original EU to brick and mortar stores for $49 (I think), and included a huge manual with it.
However, you can tell if I am shill for Paradox by looking at what else I've written over the years. While it came out late (I wanted to wait until it got some patches), my review of SOTS II is pretty damning. (Yes, I know it's published by Paradox, and not developed by them, but there's still money at stake.) And if you go even further back, to CK: DV, you'll see that I still complained about real problems in the release of that expansion (it was still kind of a mess upon release). Some people complained about the high marks I gave Sengoku, but given the price upon release, it made sense to rate it high. I can't judge $60 games by the same yardstick I judge cheaper titles, now can I?
I don't self-publish, either, like some of my distinguished colleagues at other independent outlets. My editors verify my work to the best of their ability. In fact, they change stuff I send in to better fit what they think good writing and reviewing should be. While I haven't had anything spit back to me with a "WTF is this?" query, my editors do make sure I maintain standards. And they make sure I follow the conventions of our review system, which includes always telling readers something bad about a game (we are pretty much required to complain about something).
All of that is a roundabout way of saying that we really don't have any other options at the moment when it comes to strategy games, so the best we can do is have me review it and have my editors check my work. But anyone who has a legitimate copy of the game in their hands can tell you whether I am lying or telling the truth. And you can check me previous work.
To me, this is the most concerning part about reviewers. If for some games they wait for patches to be released before reviewing and other times review games based on the first release, seems inconsistent and unfair. All games should be reviewed equally and based on the "released" code, not patched up code. If publishers want to be reviewed based on their best product, they should wait before releasing it.
Why? A review is a guideline and advice for a potential buyer. I dont want to know how a game was when it came out, I want to know how it is now.
Then all reviews should be done that way, not selectively. Just saying should always be equal.
If you know what appened with the release of SOTSII, you know that ANY reviewer in the world could only say that the game was in it's best 90% unplayable, hell, most people coul't even start it up, so is choice could only be to say just that and help to "kill" a game, or wait a litle time to figure out if the game could be salvaged, surely you do understand you are talking about someones work, even if they messed up, if there is a chance they can get it right, i don't see the crime in waiting a couple of months to see what appens, we are all just humans here...
Well, there was another aspect to it, as well. Writing a one paragraph review of SOTS II and telling people about the crashes and my difficulties in even running the game wouldn't have told anyone anything they didn't already know. It was big news, and we weren't going to generate any traffic by just saying "Yeah, it's a big mess" a week after release. So, we decided to shelve it and do other stuff. Anyone who was even remotely interested in that title or the industry in general read the news reports of refunds and the public apology.
We may be human, but we also want traffic, and a tiny review that tells everyone nothing new about that game would be a pointless waste of writer time, editor time, and front page formatting.
A more interesting question is just how you got into writing article in the first place SM?
Your review FWIW, was an enjoyable read. I think accusations of nepotism etc comes with the territory, look at football punditry, people accuse people of all sorts of biases in all form of journalism.
Your review FWIW, was an enjoyable read. I think accusations of nepotism etc comes with the territory, look at football punditry, people accuse people of all sorts of biases in all form of journalism.
I don't see what the big deal is. He isn't on Paradox's payroll (are you?)...and hey, it was a good review.
Great review- if you consider that many people reading it were probably thinking "whao, total war only on crusades!" it's not 100% positive. The reader quickly gets the idea that this is not yet-another-RTS with different sprites.
I agree on inconclusive wars, too. If a war ends for inconclusive reasons, at least pop up a box which says "the war ended inconclusively because ... well ... it's complicated!" However, if the war ends because the vassal whose claim was being pressed died (a common one, I think?), say so. If it ended because the idiot vassal who you DoWed during his war of independence settled with his liege (a very common one), that's easy enough to explain: "the idiot vassal who you DoWed during his war of independence settled with his liege".
Explaining why all my men suddenly left the castles and cities they had conquered might take a bit more work
I agree on inconclusive wars, too. If a war ends for inconclusive reasons, at least pop up a box which says "the war ended inconclusively because ... well ... it's complicated!" However, if the war ends because the vassal whose claim was being pressed died (a common one, I think?), say so. If it ended because the idiot vassal who you DoWed during his war of independence settled with his liege (a very common one), that's easy enough to explain: "the idiot vassal who you DoWed during his war of independence settled with his liege".
Explaining why all my men suddenly left the castles and cities they had conquered might take a bit more work
I love the review dude.It's VERY well written.I will come back to your website more often.Thanks.P.S Also did you do the Let's Plays of CKII?.If so could you give me the link so i can watch those to.Thanks again dude.Jayteeboy ;-)
True story:
Back in 90s, I was an avid fan of AVault. I got my game reviews and cheats from there. In 2001, I read a review for a little game you may have heard of: Europa Universalis. I bought the game and had years of fun with it and its sequels. Fast forward to 2007. AVault is going through a housecleaning and is looking for more writers. I ask to be given a shot and they ask for a writing sample. So I send in my guide on the Vickywiki about Government in Ricky and they said "Okay, come review games for us. For free." And I said, "Do I get games for free?" And they said, "Yes, but you have to review crap like Stalin Vs. Martians sometimes, not just good games." And I said, "Sure. Sign me up."
So, in weird way, my involvement with Paradox gaming and AVault is a rather bizarre feedback loop.
The LPs you are looking for can be found here.