-
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.
I have just posted my angry post on the website! I am pleased with myself, and i hope some more people will do it. Take up arms, and defend the glory that is: VICTORIA! (ok, i am being overly dramatic, but i would ask that some poeple go there, and post your comments.)
You all shouldn't be so surprised by Gamespy. If it's not a FPS with DRIVEABLE VEHICLES OMG!!!11one, they think it sucks.
You must be kidding? You'd give it that despite the partisan issues, the army sizes, Austria's doubled population, the colonization AI and colonization in general, the weird ahistorical historical events (Zollverein and NGF anyone?), the British AI, and all the other problems people know about?
I'd give it at best 6/10, maybe dropping to 5/10 after the 1.02 patch.
I'd give it at best 6/10, maybe dropping to 5/10 after the 1.02 patch.
Jim Cobb said:
Victoria is not a perfect game but it is a very good one. The reviewer seemde to be unable/unwilling to understand the game and thus he gives a bad score. It is very disappointing that the editors did nothing about the poorly written review.
I can kind of see his frustration with the game. Personaly I turned it on when I got it, and ten minutes later ctd. But I found out why it crashs to the desktop, I used my middle mouse button on some places I shouldn't :-x.
His motions towards it being TO MUCH to manage is quite a lie. Personaly I feel its JUST right and not overly complicated. Though I agree as a large power you do have to pause some time. And the times I do this is when I deploy my reserves and issue tons of invasino commands.
I'd have to agree with you on this one. Rise of nations was not the strat game of the year by far, it had way to many issues, aka playing in the modern age is annoyingly boring, and the community is absolutly crap (Which should be taken into factor ;-))
I dont think he could, or should compare it to most other games, maybe the pervious ones or the misguided Superpowers, but I feel that comparing it to other games already puts bias into his writing.
I dunno what to say about his odd ending, as im still playing my first Gc and im only on 1896. And im playing as the United States colonized 3/4 of africa, all of mexico, and central states of america, and canada and its still not to complicated.
You know that you dont always have to follow a historical line of gameplay dont you? Even with inflated areas within the game it still makes for an interesting strategy play. The above would be great if it is fixed, but at the moment and from expierence after 10-14 hours of game play I say they just add to the fun!
I think that if he wanted to get a fair review he would of had to play the game for at least a week or so. This coming from what I said about it on day two.
Friend "What the hell am I supposed to do?"
Me "I have Nfc"
Friend"This game sucks"
Me "Yea it does."
(With Patch 1.02 there didn't seem much to do early except go bankrupt and lose to mexico!)
Mind you it took reading the forums and edumicating my self on the subject a little more to actully gain a better perspective on the game, and thats what the reviewer should of done.
His motions towards it being TO MUCH to manage is quite a lie. Personaly I feel its JUST right and not overly complicated. Though I agree as a large power you do have to pause some time. And the times I do this is when I deploy my reserves and issue tons of invasino commands.
I'd have to agree with you on this one. Rise of nations was not the strat game of the year by far, it had way to many issues, aka playing in the modern age is annoyingly boring, and the community is absolutly crap (Which should be taken into factor ;-))
I dont think he could, or should compare it to most other games, maybe the pervious ones or the misguided Superpowers, but I feel that comparing it to other games already puts bias into his writing.
I dunno what to say about his odd ending, as im still playing my first Gc and im only on 1896. And im playing as the United States colonized 3/4 of africa, all of mexico, and central states of america, and canada and its still not to complicated.
You know that you dont always have to follow a historical line of gameplay dont you? Even with inflated areas within the game it still makes for an interesting strategy play. The above would be great if it is fixed, but at the moment and from expierence after 10-14 hours of game play I say they just add to the fun!
I think that if he wanted to get a fair review he would of had to play the game for at least a week or so. This coming from what I said about it on day two.
Friend "What the hell am I supposed to do?"
Me "I have Nfc"
Friend"This game sucks"
Me "Yea it does."
(With Patch 1.02 there didn't seem much to do early except go bankrupt and lose to mexico!)
Mind you it took reading the forums and edumicating my self on the subject a little more to actully gain a better perspective on the game, and thats what the reviewer should of done.
Quotes like this are why I have a hard time bringing myself to compliment Paradox or its designers. Being associated with this kind of fanaticism is distasteful.
The partisan problem, army sizes, etc. add to the fun! Wow, I didn't realize it. . . sheesh
The partisan problem, army sizes, etc. add to the fun! Wow, I didn't realize it. . . sheesh
Evilnames said:
Playing this game and studying its economic "model" is, seriously, honestly, more tedious work than researching the host country effects of foreign direct investment in real life. But I get paid for the latter.
Paradox has been way too ambitious when they tried to simulate, for example the happiness of pops.
If we consider the happiness of pops a dependent variable, then why the hell do you need at least 10 variables affecting that happiness (everything from their daily meal size to the trade union composition and health care). And when the player must control all those variables, it is an EXTREMELY difficult job, if you want to run an efficient economy. Even in social sciences the amount of variables causing something to happen (happiness) is reduced to as few as possible, but no way, Paradox had to include as MANY as possible in a computer game that is supposed to be fun. Simplification is often a virtue.. Even in science, so how about entertainment? I just wanna play, not to control dozens of variables which eventually, after all, only have a couple of ends: winning wars and getting prestige points.
By the way, in another thread, basically no-one mentions UK as their favorite country, although the Queen is in the cover of the game box. is it too tedious to play with? yes it is..
Paradox has been way too ambitious when they tried to simulate, for example the happiness of pops.
If we consider the happiness of pops a dependent variable, then why the hell do you need at least 10 variables affecting that happiness (everything from their daily meal size to the trade union composition and health care). And when the player must control all those variables, it is an EXTREMELY difficult job, if you want to run an efficient economy. Even in social sciences the amount of variables causing something to happen (happiness) is reduced to as few as possible, but no way, Paradox had to include as MANY as possible in a computer game that is supposed to be fun. Simplification is often a virtue.. Even in science, so how about entertainment? I just wanna play, not to control dozens of variables which eventually, after all, only have a couple of ends: winning wars and getting prestige points.
By the way, in another thread, basically no-one mentions UK as their favorite country, although the Queen is in the cover of the game box. is it too tedious to play with? yes it is..
JScott991 said:
And quotes like yours are why I groan everytime I see you post. Geez...we know you have problems with the game. But pleassse let us enjoy it in our own way without harping on us for our fun. If you think it's silly, fine. All power to ya...but I swear you're like the Forum Grouch.
Come on, I admit that I am too harsh and that I leave the compliments to others, but to say that the BUGS in the game add to the fun!?
That's a little far fetched isn't it?
That's a little far fetched isn't it?
Mettermrck said:And quotes like yours are why I groan everytime I see you post. Geez...we know you have problems with the game. But pleassse let us enjoy it in our own way without harping on us for our fun. If you think it's silly, fine. All power to ya...but I swear you're like the Forum Grouch.
I'm not fanatic about this game. BUT some things DO add to the game play in a method or manner. THERE ARE problems I see with the partasian problem, I dont mind that they pop up, but issues where they pop up with 10,000 dragoons in 10 minutes now there is a problem. But they poping up at all is not a problem (As long as its small ammounts!) But even then playing "wack a mole" is still enoupgh to hold your interest in a game and add a "Maybe they dont want to be taken over" to your invasion ideas. And over powered partasians are bad, I dunno if you were talking about them ALL or just the massive ammounts.
Army sizes are interesting. I just dont see the computer following the military that i build (but I play a differnt version) if they did it would be cool. For example and directly related to the partian problem : 650,000 regulars went up against 10000 troops. My guys were at 1% and the enemy at 60% and in the first I dunno cuople seconds about 100,000+ of my guys were dropped. All it did was make me think, and really if im not here to THINK about a game ill go play quake or something mindless.
So YES it does add to the fun, but to an extent, take the words lightly.
No not at all, maybe you have to invision it in a differnt light to gain the same perspective as I have. I two would LIKE to see the bugs solved, but until then you must make the positive light. And again I am no way fanatic about this game, I wonder if after I finish this GC ill ever turn on the game. Ill probley wait until the game is back to the econmical model which seems imho good in 1.00 and when some of the bugs are fixed. But till then my nation of sunni muslium americans will continue... to at least 1920...
Safe to say the only thing crashing would be the reviewers brain before writing the review. Maybe he got owned by denmark as prussia? Stuff like that can and will happen to thoose not worthy
Now I have to give my two cents.JScott991 said:
What exactly are you calling bugs??? He was saying he enjoys the partisan, army size, etc. So there are a lot of partisans in the game, so there are big armies in the game. Are those bugs???
In any other games, it would be called gameplay. Just because it is something that you do not enjoy does not make it a bug. Especially when somebody else happens to enjoy it!
OndGud said:Safe to say the only thing crashing would be the reviewers brain before writing the review. Maybe he got owned by denmark as prussia? Stuff like that can and will happen to thoose not worthy
In my games Denmark always annihilates Prussia
Power to the danes!!! P.S. Anyone who have some links to good sites where I can read reviews of games, I used to read gamespy's review but after reading that review about Victoria, then that is over.
stn said:In my games Denmark always annihilates Prussia
P.S. Anyone who have some links to good sites where I can read reviews of games, I used to read gamespy's review but after reading that review about Victoria, then that is over.
www.gamerankings.com
I find the military part of the game really enjoyable, and apart for tunning down a bit the partisans ( but hey, having one div per occupied province to maintain order seems to be the realistic thing to do...), I can say I am really enjoying it, specially in the 1861 scenario where warfare is very equilibrated and fun...
Then again, the economic model, comprising way too much info of little to no game interest, and mysterious chaos on important things ( why do people revolt ??? ), the WM completely absurd ( there should be an Internal market and a world market, coming as an alternative to the first one if it lacks commoditites, or produce them at an uneffective cost ), and the pop thing being overly complicated an giving the player too much control and not enough understanding of what is going on,...
All these things sum up and makes me be bored/annoyed/exasperated when playing on GC, not because I can't do what i'd like, but because I don't understand what i am doing and where i am going...
On the contrary, the other scenarios are quite enjoyable...
Overall I would give the game a 5/10, no more, but then I know with patches the game's mark will rise, but probably not above 7 or 8 at best cause some flaws are design flaws that can't be patched...
So I can say I understand those that are having a blast, cause I do so myself for 1 hour of epic warfaring, although i wish I had their patience because I am often so exasperated i have to stop to calm down...
On the other hand I fully share the concerns of those that feel the game is disappointing, and find it,... well,... Something in between tedious and frustrating...
Last point, i am sure you notice that unlike what happened for HOI where people shouted that the game was completely unfinished and unplayable, almost being a fraud, until the patches turned it into what it was supposed to be, ie a game; in the case of VIc, people complaining do so on balance issues and design choices that are considered too ambitious and therefore not implemented as they should don't accuse paraodox of not having worked properly, but just of having made mistakes. In other terms, we trust you and believe you will fix what is fixable, and make next games without some designs errors, possibly simplifying the pop thing..;
My two centimes d'euro.
Then again, the economic model, comprising way too much info of little to no game interest, and mysterious chaos on important things ( why do people revolt ??? ), the WM completely absurd ( there should be an Internal market and a world market, coming as an alternative to the first one if it lacks commoditites, or produce them at an uneffective cost ), and the pop thing being overly complicated an giving the player too much control and not enough understanding of what is going on,...
All these things sum up and makes me be bored/annoyed/exasperated when playing on GC, not because I can't do what i'd like, but because I don't understand what i am doing and where i am going...
On the contrary, the other scenarios are quite enjoyable...
Overall I would give the game a 5/10, no more, but then I know with patches the game's mark will rise, but probably not above 7 or 8 at best cause some flaws are design flaws that can't be patched...
So I can say I understand those that are having a blast, cause I do so myself for 1 hour of epic warfaring, although i wish I had their patience because I am often so exasperated i have to stop to calm down...
On the other hand I fully share the concerns of those that feel the game is disappointing, and find it,... well,... Something in between tedious and frustrating...
Last point, i am sure you notice that unlike what happened for HOI where people shouted that the game was completely unfinished and unplayable, almost being a fraud, until the patches turned it into what it was supposed to be, ie a game; in the case of VIc, people complaining do so on balance issues and design choices that are considered too ambitious and therefore not implemented as they should don't accuse paraodox of not having worked properly, but just of having made mistakes. In other terms, we trust you and believe you will fix what is fixable, and make next games without some designs errors, possibly simplifying the pop thing..;
My two centimes d'euro.