Or a 10 year old that likes to stay neutral.
[Chris Hansen]Know many 10 year old Swiss children, do you?[/Chris Hansen]
-
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.
[Chris Hansen]Know many 10 year old Swiss children, do you?[/Chris Hansen]
You are correct - it is a PREview, not a REview. It's meant to provide a quick introductory idea of the game to people who don't know about it. Practically no preview will provide any new information to those of us who have been regularly keeping up on these forums - but that's ok, we are not the intended audience of the previews. Reviews happen after the game ships, and are generally much more in-depth.
That said, it WAS a fairly lousy preview that didn't really go into much about what makes HoI3 interesting. The impression I got was that the writer is interested in neither the style of game ("Sometimes just considering playing these games can be an intimidating prospect"), nor the ww2 setting ("brings a new lease of life to an otherwise stale setting") at all.
Though I do agree with him that WW2 is a stale setting. The reason HoI3 holds so much interest is because it does things that are different from what other games about WW2 routinely do (i.e., focus exclusively on Europe, exclusively after 1939, without any new ideas whatsoever).
Spot on - although player got to be a grognard to understand this critical difference between HoI series and all the other WWII strategies.
They take easy way by adding tons of limitations like start time, arbitrary bonuses/penalties, limited area of operations and such. HoI attempts (for good or for worse) to take everything at once - and it gets better and better at it.
Has anyone else been shocked by how bad these so-called "previews" have been?
Aside from the non professional on on this site(EDIT I mean this forum) (which was far better then the rest) I have grave doubts they did more then opened the press kit let alone read the stuff in it.
And thats coming from someone who has long been disillusioned* with game reviews/previews in general so I wasnt expecting much and I couldnt even get that!
* The number of times I've read a glowing review only to hit a game breaking bug ten minutes in or finished the great first level to find the next 10 are half done and terrible makes it quite clear to me that most reviewers barely play the game past the opening bit, and proably have the review half written during the install phase.
Well epic fail then!
Assume you know nothing of hearts of iron, that preview told you its something like Civ or EU (two very different games from each other) but focused on WW2 which has been done before.
Maybe some simple info like real time or turn based would be a good start for someone new!!!!!!
Also - have you read a game mag or website lately? PREviews game tons of pages and multiple stories, they have heaps of info, often more then the actual review
Aside from the non professional on on this site(EDIT I mean this forum) (which was far better then the rest) I have grave doubts they did more then opened the press kit let alone read the stuff in it.
And thats coming from someone who has long been disillusioned* with game reviews/previews in general so I wasnt expecting much and I couldnt even get that!
* The number of times I've read a glowing review only to hit a game breaking bug ten minutes in or finished the great first level to find the next 10 are half done and terrible makes it quite clear to me that most reviewers barely play the game past the opening bit, and proably have the review half written during the install phase.
Well epic fail then!
Assume you know nothing of hearts of iron, that preview told you its something like Civ or EU (two very different games from each other) but focused on WW2 which has been done before.
Maybe some simple info like real time or turn based would be a good start for someone new!!!!!!
Also - have you read a game mag or website lately? PREviews game tons of pages and multiple stories, they have heaps of info, often more then the actual review
Well, I suppose it's on par with the quality you can expect from ameteur journalism. The previews from professional sites have been a lot better.
While I think the preview was horribly written, with misdirects and complete omissions about what the game and the overall scope of gameplay is about; the previewer was attempting to compliment PI heavily. While many of us may see a comparison to Civ4 as a slap in the face, I think the attempt to compare actually had more to do with the overall greatness of name and longevity the game has to offer. I think that is why Johan decided to post the preview on the forum, hoping that we would appreciate it in that aspect.
All that said, the preview missed the spot to shine our ego of HOI being the unique game that it is.
All that said, the preview missed the spot to shine our ego of HOI being the unique game that it is.
I really want to see what serious mainstream press says about this - i.e., Gamespot, IGN and Gamespy. So far I think they were pretty excited (or Susana did a good job nagging them ) about the game, a fair number of updates from Gamespot early on, E3 coverage, etc.
EDIT: Though I wonder if they actually had the preview build in hands when they did those E3 previews? Will there be another round I wonder?
) about the game, a fair number of updates from Gamespot early on, E3 coverage, etc.EDIT: Though I wonder if they actually had the preview build in hands when they did those E3 previews? Will there be another round I wonder?
I think Johan was right to link the review... He's basicly been linking them all as he comes across them.
The fact that I didnt think the reviewer did his job correctly has nothing to do with HOI3, Im sure he would have messed up any review he obviously didnt research
The fact that I didnt think the reviewer did his job correctly has nothing to do with HOI3, Im sure he would have messed up any review he obviously didnt research
I am allways ready to opologize if I did offended anyone on this forum,and I hope I didnt offend ofittials,at least it was not my intention.
I allways believed that sencire and honest criticism opens possibilities of improvements.The aclamations about everything,even about so perfectionisticaly made game as HOI worths a little,of course when there is true reason for aclamation I will allways sad this.
This game will be great one,and I am sure,actualy I know we will enjoy it like never before.But I still stand on a point that if there is some correct critical view on the subject,this only can improve the game in the future.
Now I see, I criticised the subject that should not concerned me, couse I am only interested in improoving this capital game if I can contrubute...(http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?t=256801)
It was stupid from me to make comments on things that doesnt concernes me.
In that sence, I opologize to everyone specialy to Johan and team whose work I admire.
Please understand I am nervous in awaiting the release date and simply want to know more...
Last edited:
I don't think that there's need to play a game at all to write a review nowadays, you just have to repeat what the editor/devellopers say.
I've read tons of games reviews since years and years and it's obvious that they spend less and less time to test. And sometimes they don't test at all.
Nowadays reviews are to reviews what nowadays "journalism" is to journalism. A business machine to blow at best emptyness, at worst propaganda.
IMHO the only way to have an honest review is to wait for players' opinions once the fever of the release is gone.
People, what's your problem?
This is a mainstream preview, it is about telling the testers feelings about a beta build of a soon-to-be-published game. Telling people who in 95% probably never heard about the HoI series.
In that light I don't understand why it is a problem that he compares HoI3 with Civ4. Sure they're different games, but Civ4 is probably the best known game to the casual strategy gamer reading the preview. And it is not that the previewer tries to compare explicit game features or something. And finally, he concludes:
This is, first of all, a pretty good judgment in my opinion, and second, a kudos to Paradox and HoI3. And still you are bashing this preview. I mean seriously, what do you expect?
This is a mainstream preview, it is about telling the testers feelings about a beta build of a soon-to-be-published game. Telling people who in 95% probably never heard about the HoI series.
In that light I don't understand why it is a problem that he compares HoI3 with Civ4. Sure they're different games, but Civ4 is probably the best known game to the casual strategy gamer reading the preview. And it is not that the previewer tries to compare explicit game features or something. And finally, he concludes:
Review said:
This is, first of all, a pretty good judgment in my opinion, and second, a kudos to Paradox and HoI3. And still you are bashing this preview. I mean seriously, what do you expect?
To be a fair, this is really a terrible preview. If I was completely oblivious to the Hearts Of Iron series or Paradox games, I would think this was a turn-based 4x game just like Civ IV. Furthermore the writer completely misses the point of the game. Who cares for ICBM's or playing neutral countries in Hearts Of Iron? :wacko:. Also consider this quote:
Yeah good luck with that cunning plan Mr. Previewer.
I think this guy doesn't even like strategy games. This is the worst preview yet.
The comparison with Civ 4 is poor because they are radically different games on so many levels. Its like saying that Steel Panthers and Company of Heroes are similar.
I very much doubt the previewer has actually played HOI3. There's really nothing about the game itself there, just general stuff that has been in-game since HOI1. It's more like a short, pseudo-neutral Wikipedia entry for the HOI series. Nothing wrong with such a thing per se, if it gets people into HOI, great. But why label it as a "Hearts of Iron 3 preview"?
