Early, Critical Feedback, From RockPaperShotgun

[Lunatic Pathos]

Rocket science isn't all that hard, once you know the rules. The computer solves most of the math for you once you figure out the equations.

Not a statement on this discussion, but an interesting aside.

True, it is rocket engineering that is truly difficult.

Disclaimer: I am a rocket engineer.

 

[FlavourBeans]

Well, he was not really enthusiastic about the Tutorial, was he?

True, but overall, it's more of a mixed reaction than a negative one, and the things he liked are all the things ahead of him, and the part he didn't like is what he'll soon be past. So if you're assuming 'critical' to be the negative connotation, you're definitely getting the wrong idea.

Also, another point that I think is causing a lot of confusion (or at least some messy discussion): I think a lot of people are assuming he's referring to the tutorial mission, when going with what he said, it sounds more like he wasn't so thrilled with the tutorial dialogue back on the ship, the way you learn about the mech bay and stuff.

 

[FlavourBeans]

Absolutely. They have staffers who like one or both of those games. But John Walker (who I believe is reviewing Battletech) is perfectly willing to rip into perceived poor design choices even if he likes the game as a whole. I'm not expecting RPS to tank the whole review but the enjoyment will be coloured by just how inaccessible they find aspects of the design.

This is true. Then again, John Walker is the one whose praising got me to play OneShot and Rakuen, which are likely #1 and #2 for the loveliest and most emotional games I've ever played. So he can do no wrong in my book.

 

[NeonKnight]

Some forum contributors have put together some manuals, don't know if there is anything official yet.

there is this From Eck:

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1365402907

 

[HF22]

The title is not perfectly fine and you yourself are stating the point in question it right there. There is negative feedback ON THE TUTORIAL. So why does the topic sound like it is overall negative feedback? I, too, would say that is clickbait, because a crucial point of info is omitted from the topic. (And I can agree to complaints about the tutorial)

Its a title, not an essay. That information is given in the opening post, where it is supposed to go.

 

[kvetcha]

It's still misleading and borderline-clickbait.

 

[HF22]

I think a big part of the disagreement over the title is that 'critical' usually has very negative connotations, even though it's being meant, in this case, to just be 'critique', 'the opinion of a critic'.

I used the word with its negative meaning - The comments made were negative.

 

[HF22]

... is it so bad to add these three words and just make it way clearer WHAT they complained about? I think the reaction would be different, too, if that differentiation had been made.

Because the tutorial IS the first few hours of the game, I think that would be misleading in a title.

I summarize the comments regarding the tutorial in my opening post, but I stand by the title.

 

[Havamal]

Greetings Mechwarriors,

Please move on from the circular argument regarding the semantics of the thread name.
(Suggestions, advice, and polite disagreements are fine. Derailment is not)
Forum staff will as always be the only ones to make an evaluation if a thread could use a more informative thread title if in dispute.
And it's not as if any one utilized the report feature before wading in.

Back on topic, respectfully please

Thank you

 

[Rhodium]

The pot calling the kettle black?

Listening to the part in question it's almost like he meant "awkward", but used "complicated" the same way you used "complicated" interchangeably (but when he says "complicated" it's "complicated". When you say "complicated" it's just "complex in a different word"). More importantly, this completely changes his position from being a simple dolt (that you painted him as, with your reply) to being a reasonable person. Because he isn't saying anything wrong there.

I don’t think it makes him or I are a dolt to interpret ‘complicated’ as what you are careful to refer to as ‘complex.’ I don’t think the reviewer in question was trying to convey that the Argo loop was simply poorly laid out and thus annoying. I do think he was complaining about HBS trying to cram too much depth into elements he felt were totally uneccisary, thus bogging the game down.

I also think that most of the initial backers for battletech do not share said reviewers opinion that said features were uneccisary or overdone. I do however think mainstream consumers would share in that opinion, and that does ruffle my feathers a bit.

 

[Flying Dice]

The initial tutorial mission isn't great, but it's enough to get you through the tutorial, at which point the tutorials on the Leopard open up. As for "boring", well, that says more about the reviewer than the game. Not like RPS are a bastion of quality anyways, they've been a joke for years just like most of their pocket-lining brethren.

 

[Stuckenschmidt]

As for "boring", well, that says more about the reviewer than the game. Not like RPS are a bastion of quality anyways, they've been a joke for years just like most of their pocket-lining brethren.

Or maybe they are simply right. And it is interesting, how many jump to the conclusion that RPS "is a joke" on the grounds that they said something negative about a video game some people here seem to like a bit too much. But to each his own, I guess.

 

[Flying Dice]

Or maybe they are simply right. And it is interesting, how many jump to the conclusion that RPS "is a joke" on the grounds that they said something negative about a video game some people here seem to like a bit too much. But to each his own, I guess.

As I said, RPS has been a joke since before the HBS BTech kickstarter was launched. Like most "gaming journalism" sites half their staff are hacks who don't give a damn about games and are just in it because it's an easy job with plenty of kickbacks for giving out good reviews to major developers and publishers.

Maybe, just maybe, the person reviewing a turn-based tactics title should be someone with an attention span longer than fifteen seconds. I seem to recall reviews of nuCOM in a similar vein, people with no attention span complaining that it was boring and people with no tactical sense complaining that it was hard.

 

[Stuckenschmidt]

As I said, RPS has been a joke since before the HBS BTech kickstarter was launched. Like most "gaming journalism" sites half their staff are hacks who don't give a damn about games and are just in it because it's an easy job with plenty of kickbacks for giving out good reviews to major developers and publishers.

Maybe, just maybe, the person reviewing a turn-based tactics title should be someone with an attention span longer than fifteen seconds. I seem to recall reviews of nuCOM in a similar vein, people with no attention span complaining that it was boring and people with no tactical sense complaining that it was hard.

More ad hominems. But, well, tell me more about your insider knowledge of other peoples` qualifications.

 

[stjobe]

Since you can't discuss this topic civilly even after three moderator reminders, I'm locking this thread.