Originally posted by State Machine
Peter, I didn't really intend my post to be a defense of the game as released, as that would be a bit difficult... Perhaps more of an attempt to state where Paradox goes with their games and that some people will never be satisfied, even after the major issues are fixed in patches.
Since I understand Darkmoor's review to be on a site for uber-grognards. I don't think they will ever like the game unless they accept what I think is Paradox's approach to games. Admittedly, a not very interesting argument at the moment...
BTW, it isn't necessary for me to have played the game to be aware of the problems. The beta forum and daily beta patches keep me well informed 
, and we are a month or so ahead of the public.
Blimmey! Uber-grogs?
Nooooo... not that i've seen anyway. Gameplay-addicts, yes, uber-grogs - no. At least - i don't think so.
A grog-game is, for me, Combat Mission - ability to fairly accurately recreate a number of disparate encounters without any grand "overview" or campaign (which would render the accuracy null and void). Airborne Assault also - good grog game that. Panzer General - fun gameplay - not a grogs game though really?
Gameplay people always want the big "what-if?" scenario's and grand campaigns... Grogs often aren't bothered so long as they can mimic "their little favourite battle or micro-campaign".
Currently - lets face it, if the AI wont build units there's practically no gameplay at all...nor indeed any grog-play.
That's fundamental stuff. Grog or gameplay fan...and nobody can really be "satisfied" with it.
Im playing Jedi-Knight and beyond the first room there are no bad guys.... Do i score it 9/10? Is it good? Is it finished? Is it worth buying?
- - -
Reviewing games is an odd thing: Its far more "dangerous" to write a glowing review than a bad one - that may seem odd but with a glowing review people go out and spend their money on it. All those little "foibles" you forget to mention they experience - they are there in the game after all - you just didn't mention them. That upsets people. They stop trusting your opinion...and well they should.
Nowadays many online sites have inumerous "reviewers" - many of which (most of which) are now unpaid volunteers who may review the odd game now and again. Most often games that they like to play themselves. They do so in "spare time" and a get a freebie copy as a result.
Some are good , most are awful... and generally because they fail to realise there is a responsibility in writing a review that costs people their hard-earned moolah.
Few have any real direct contact with their readership, fewer still any contact or experience in the gaming industry.
"I played it a bit and it seemed allright lets give it, hmm, say 9 our of 10"
That isn't a review. It says nothing at all about the "worth" of the game....giving scores has always been a bane of my life. When I wrote for magazines they always wanted a score.. drove me nuts... never having seen a 10 how can you give marks out of 10? What's your baseline?
If HoI was without any bug other than the failure of the AI to build units would it surely not still score zero? I've no idea - but its apparent that many "reviewers" believe it stills cores 9/10...despite the abscence of any competition within the game.
Its why we don't give scores - they are worthless..and nothing more than a means to rrank games without having tor ead the actual review.
Where games have "show-stoppers" they is actually little need to go beyond outlining those show-stoppers and "that's it". One can never honestly adivse the purchase of that game until its resolved - after which you can review it, but not until then.
So ironic as it may seem, good (positive) reviews need to be carefully detailed and bad (negative) reviews , in the worst cases, need only say "Ooops! uh-uh! Don't buyit! Show-stopper alert!".
The "rub" and the "responsibility" for the reviewer comes later - you needs must also ensure you clearly re-review once that show-stopper is gone...and if you consider most of the current netzines you can see clearly how rare those occurences are.
"It used to be shit but now its great" is a perfectly valid review... and far more "appropriate", imo, than posting out a glowing review that fails to alert the gamer to flaws, especially where those flaws are recognised by the designers themselves and present on their own official bug list and purchaser of the game can avoid.
Style, presentation and spelling within a review, let alone html quality, are irrelevant where the review does not actually review.
"that some people will never be satisfied, even after the major issues are fixed in patches" is a given - that is differing opinion....but that does not mean that the very existence of the need for major patches, or any "belief" that they may ultimately even transpire, absolves a reviewer from pointing those major issues out - or failing to take them into consideration for a "score".
You review what is in your hands - not what may be coming sometime in the future - that is called a preview - with an entirely different set of rules.
- - -
Sorry for the length of the post - i can tend to ramble on - and please bear in mind I am generalising here, trying to avoid any specifics to HoI other than as a reference point.
My only consideration in reviews is to my readership, and the trust they place in me to say it as i see it. That they often chose to follow my recomendations is the greatest accolade i can get...and as such the feelings of the designers, testers and fans of a game are scondary at best.
That may not seem alltogether "nice" but that is where my loyalties are firmly entrenched. It is also why i no longer write for certain publications - which should say enough on its own about that side of things. (It happens, i've experienced it, don't believe otherwise.)
