Vic got trashed!

[Tai-Pan]

The policy of only reviewing unpatched games is a very good one. Why should a company put out an unfinsihed game? Well they have no reason too. Maybe if its not perfect it just needs to be worked on more before its sent out.

Lets be honest, sometimes Paradox doesn't make a universally approved game. It can happen, their are OTHER people with DIFFERENT opinions out there.

 

[SR-71]

I think this is a frank but not unreasonable assessment of Victoria. As another review stated, I think the game has potential, but at its present state, I really couldn't recommend it to my friends because a player has to be very tolerant and patient while playing this game. I DID recommend EU2 to others, but I'm not recommending Victoria yet.

(When PC Gamer REALLY trashes a game, they give ratings below 10%, where they become candidates for an occasional very amusing "Worst Game Ever" article.)

The simple truth is Victoria is getting decidedly mixed reviews. The reasons has already been mentioned in this thread; if one hasn't played EU2 and HOI as a prerequisite, even an intelligent gamer would be hopelessly lost. A reviewer has to compare Victoria against other complex strategy games that do have a good manual, a good tutorial, and a good interface. (Why did they drop handy little details like the strength tags below armies? Why does the diplomatic relations list only show relations with the 8 Great Powers, and not all nations like EU2 did?)

I sincerely hope that Paradox, for their own good, take these reviews not as an insult but a warning. If each successive game assumes familiarity with other Paradox titles, then each game will appeal to only a subset of the people who bought the previous ones. This is NOT a good business strategy.

I couldn't say it better.

That review, like others is not an insult, is a WARNING, like lots of our posts are.

Greetings

 

[Spooky]

The policy of only reviewing unpatched games is a very good one. Why should a company put out an unfinsihed game? Well they have no reason too. Maybe if its not perfect it just needs to be worked on more before its sent out.

Lets be honest, sometimes Paradox doesn't make a universally approved game. It can happen, their are OTHER people with DIFFERENT opinions out there.

This policy is stupid .... Most of the great strategy games published in the last 2 years (Korsun Pocket, Uncommon Valor, HOI, EU2, Galciv, Space Empires IV, ...even RailRoad Tycoon 3 or Simcity 4) were patched quite often ... because the developpers wanted to include some of the players' feed-back in their games in addition to correcting bugs. This "we review only unpatched games" policy was the right one only when no internet access was available ... but for most of us, it is fortunately no longer the case

In a way, a game is never finished (cf EU2) ... especially an "open-play" game such as a strategy game ... so the right policy for a reviewer is probably to test the game as it is at the time of the test (and so with the patches).

 

[unmerged(13520)]

ABOVE AVERAGE: Reasonable, above average games. They might be worth buying, but they probably have a few significant flaws that limit their appeal.

Well, I can tend to agree with that.

It's a much more reasonable veredict than that of those who simply say that the game is completely unfun, unplayable, etc. and other almost totally pessimistic and impatient assesments that have been floating around here and elsewhere.

I can honestly say that it's fun, it's playable, yes, but within certain limits (both game-wise and player-wise) and it's obviously not a perfect game in its current state.

 

[Derek Pullem]

The policy of only reviewing unpatched games is a very good one. Why should a company put out an unfinsihed game? Well they have no reason too. Maybe if its not perfect it just needs to be worked on more before its sent out.

Lets be honest, sometimes Paradox doesn't make a universally approved game. It can happen, their are OTHER people with DIFFERENT opinions out there.

The policy of reviewing unpatched games comes directly from the imperative by the mainstream mags to get their reviews out first. Better the review came out a month early than wait for the release version. As Vicky got patched to 1.01 before it was released then why shouldn't they review a patched game. Or are the mags trying to pretend that gamers do not have access to the internet?

The reviews rarely mean anything now - they are just ways to sell the mag "World Exclusive - first review of blah blah " (BTW - we agreed not to say anything bad about it to get the exclusive - and we only had 10 minute to review it anyway before our deadline).

 

[unmerged(15243)]

Couldn't agree more Derek...

I myself don't buy anything based on their reviews alone because I know they're more a money making device than an honest review.

Basically, I find a small developer/publisher I like, and trust that their work will continue to be excellent (and in the case of Paradox it has). Same goes for Firaxis, Dreamcatcher, Maxis, Matrix, Shrapnel, Battlefront, etc...

But what I do rely on those reviews in magazines for are the more mainstream things, or genres/companies I've never tried before. It was those good reviews which convinced me to go for my first Paradox game. One which got rave reviews despite having the exact same qualities as Victoria. It was also those reviews which convinced me to get many fun driving games and a steering wheel

That mediocre review might cause someone who's making their first forays into the genre from steering clear in a way it never would to most of us here. That's why it made me irate.

And that policy of reviewing non-patched games only is soooo 1989. We've gone so far beyond the point of easy internet access that we laugh at people still using dialup like they're driving an Opel in an auto race. All games need patching (wether for unforseen issues or gameplay balance or add ons). What I'd love to see is reviews for a game on one whole page, with an inset for each patch up till press date that details fixes and additions).

Also, in light of the past few issues of the mag, I'd love to NOT see 6 consecutive pages of ads in the magazine... but that's a whole other issue

-Andy

 

[Vulture]

Vulture, I agree with you, but let me ad something that's rather bold to say =

some mainstream magazines want to prevent that their readers ever buy such a game and feel like they've lost their money on something "not sexy" "not fast" "not quick" "no high graphical detail",

why do I say such things, well because they always fail to benchmark the games,

I know that you are talking about the pcgameplay review for EU2. But that magazine has devolved also. They had good reviews for both Industry giant II and frontline attack (not assault!). The first game required an hour micromanagement to optimise stock and production parameters to render 4 factories efficiënt. Two hours later I had to manage 16 factories and I returned the game to the shop.

In frontline attack my Königstiger division was massacred by 10 soldiers. After checking the manual I saw the only armour doing some damage to soldiers was a self propelled howitser like the Wespe. The 2 (or 3) machine guns and the HE shells of the Königstiger didn't damage soldiers???

When I wrote a thread about it on their forums, they closed the thread saying that my opinion was biased,

yeah - great :rofl:

game magazines love to have mainstream readers - why don't they have a good reviewer that handles niche games? And then explicitly state the game is niche, and what game it is,

Yeah, totally agree Sprucey

 

[Vulture]

Couldn't agree more Derek...

I myself don't buy anything based on their reviews alone because I know they're more a money making device than an honest review.

Basically, I find a small developer/publisher I like, and trust that their work will continue to be excellent (and in the case of Paradox it has). Same goes for Firaxis, Dreamcatcher, Maxis, Matrix, Shrapnel, Battlefront, etc...

But what I do rely on those reviews in magazines for are the more mainstream things, or genres/companies I've never tried before. It was those good reviews which convinced me to go for my first Paradox game. One which got rave reviews despite having the exact same qualities as Victoria. It was also those reviews which convinced me to get many fun driving games and a steering wheel

That mediocre review might cause someone who's making their first forays into the genre from steering clear in a way it never would to most of us here. That's why it made me irate.

And that policy of reviewing non-patched games only is soooo 1989. We've gone so far beyond the point of easy internet access that we laugh at people still using dialup like they're driving an Opel in an auto race. All games need patching (wether for unforseen issues or gameplay balance or add ons). What I'd love to see is reviews for a game on one whole page, with an inset for each patch up till press date that details fixes and additions).

Also, in light of the past few issues of the mag, I'd love to NOT see 6 consecutive pages of ads in the magazine... but that's a whole other issue

-Andy

Well put, and I agree with it. I stopped buying magazines half a year ago.

 

[mvsnconsolegene]

The policy of only reviewing unpatched games is a very good one. Why should a company put out an unfinsihed game? Well they have no reason too. Maybe if its not perfect it just needs to be worked on more before its sent out.

Lets be honest, sometimes Paradox doesn't make a universally approved game. It can happen, their are OTHER people with DIFFERENT opinions out there.

Of course there are aother people with other opinions; unfortunately I don't like their opinions. If they had their way innovative companies like Paradox would be out of business to make room for some useless RTS and 3D First Person Shooter clone.

I don't understand how anyone can argue that gaming magizines aren't meant for mass appeal; i.e. niche games get bad reviews simply because young johnny with an xbox expects everything to explode in his games.

With regards to reviewing unpatch games, unfortunately I think that was a very different era when you could do it on the PC. Publishers too often force games out too early and the designers get screwed. It's really a nowin situation for them; they release the games whole they piss off the publishers because it took too long (I've seen publishers demolish companies because of this and they want to take them over) abd they release them early and they get bad reviews.

It comes down to a very simple argument: "Do you want to play more games like the kind paradox puts out?".

- MVSN

 

[unmerged(16676)]

Manual problems and no tutorial appear to leave such an impression with reviewers. Remember, they may not have played EU/HOI and do not have the same motivation to learn that we do.

I can comment on this, Dins.

I usually have 2-4 games that need reviews, and usually only 2 weeks tops to get the review out from recieving it, no tutorial or a bad manual means it may be difficult to get into the game, to know what to do, even to know what is going on, since you usually have to review whatever is sent your way, there is little incentive to learn things you didn't pick.

 

[unmerged(3856)]

Paradox has a history of creating very good games. It also has a history of creating buggy, incomplete games with an inferior user interface, poor graphics, poor manual and lack of tutorials. This alone is enough to explain the poor reviews.

Paradox is not doing themselves any favours by persisting with this policy(?). Further, they are not doing gamers who want to play complex historical strategy games any favours either. To allow us to continue to enjoy these games Paradox itself must be a successful games developer. The issues which I have raised put this in jeopardy.

For all our sakes I hope that Paradox lifts its game. (no pun intended - well, may be intended.)

 

[Darkrenown]

Paradox is not doing themselves any favours by persisting with this policy(?).

Do you think they want to do that? More like they have to do it to get a game out in time to stay in business, and they are very good when it comes to patching.

 

[unmerged(21992)]

Do you think they want to do that? More like they have to do it to get a game out in time to stay in business, and they are very good when it comes to patching.

That doesn't change the fact that Paradox's business model is completely screwed up. Paradox is currently leaning in the direction of building their games with an eye towards their hardcore fans, the same ones that tend to hang out on company message boards. As such, they're permanently locking themselves out of a larger market that they could possibly break into if one of their games was polished enough, and clear enough, to merit an 80-average from reviewers.

 

[Johan]

That doesn't change the fact that Paradox's business model is completely screwed up. Paradox is currently leaning in the direction of building their games with an eye towards their hardcore fans, the same ones that tend to hang out on company message boards. As such, they're permanently locking themselves out of a larger market that they could possibly break into if one of their games was polished enough, and clear enough, to merit an 80-average from reviewers.

Yes. We have come to realise that too. EU2 was probably the limit of complexity to get 80+ ratings. Victoria is perhaps too advanced for most people.

 

[Judge]

I think Paradox should continue to develop complex game but the main point is that the game should be accompanied with a manual thick as a bible to give the players who

a) aren’t familiar with a Paradox game
b) who can´t devote much time or even find the forum here a chance to understand the full potential of the game.

Another problem was (fixed) that the game in its original state was too unbalanced. If it had come out in the shape it is currently in it would have much better though some minor flaws still remain. I am a bit surprised that this wasn’t noticed during the beta testing stage.

However I have been playing the game a lot and I really do enjoy it and it has a lot of potential when the last problems are fixed. Sadly I guess that a little more focus on the “packaging part” would have given the game a lot more backing on the market that it actually deserves

 

[Mordoch]

I think Paradox should continue to develop complex game but the main point is that the game should be accompanied with a manual thick as a bible to give the players who

a) aren’t familiar with a Paradox game
b) who can´t devote much time or even find the forum here a chance to understand the full potential of the game.

The problem is this isn't an option for Paradox if they want their game published in other countries in languages other than English. The publishers made it explicitly clear this time that they would refuse to translate a manual much larger than the current one.

 

[unmerged(16133)]

Johan I don't think too advanced is quite correct, As a couple of friends have mentioned to me after watching me play for some time, Both play HOI (I needed some MP players so bought them copies of the game) it seems that the appreciate what you are trying to do and some of the features but it seems that the 1830's-1920's doesn't strike the same itch in as many people as the longer earlier Time frame EU games or the Later shorter time frame HOI does both after reading on some of EUII have decided to purchase a copy of EUII, we (the 3 of us) wish that some of the features in Victoria were in HOI but can understand the design of them later on being the reason for their non inclusion there. i find Vic Enjoyable but not nearly as historic in some of the game play features as i had thought i would have found but that is not relevant, I doubt after thinking some over that the game would be playable or if it were it would have required 100x the man hours in devolpment as went into it already and we would still be waiting for a beta to be tested. :}
the ACW and formation of Italy and Germany, the comeing of modern age in Japan, the Socialist revolution in Russia major events but i think it draws on too few peoples major itches while with EU it has far more history to cover and HOI has far more recent history history which we still feel today with those in Euorpe or Asia having major reminders still available and the US well i had my grandfaters info on it what little he was willing to talk about of his time serveing in Africa and well more coverage on WWII than others here atleast for me in school. so I would say that getting the games to more people isn't the complexity in effect but more likely the time frame not appealing to as many people as other time frames are to them.

 

[Judge]

Mordoch I see but most people do understand English. Why not add the English version?

Mellow, I think you have a point there. The time span in Victoria is a bit short. Just as you have industrialized the game is over. Actually it would have been great to merge the Vic time span and the HOI time span

 

[Claude Luster]

Yes. We have come to realise that too. EU2 was probably the limit of complexity to get 80+ ratings. Victoria is perhaps too advanced for most people.

Some of my friends(about 8 of them) and I love these games. There's a bit of a learning curve to them, but all in all, I can't think of a more satisfying strategy game out there. With the multi-player mode we get together for entire weekends and play one game. Please don't change what you're doing.

C.L.

 

[mvsnconsolegene]

My friends(about 8 of them) and I love these games. There's a bit of a learning curve to them, but all in all, I can't think of a more satisfying strategy game out there. With the multi-player mode we get together for entire weekends and play one game. Please don't change what you're doing.

C.L.

No Curves! I've been reading this and it seems that a lot of people want to move paradox into the mainstream. Although I have a desire to see this company succeed because I have enjoyed every single last product I have purchased from them, don't people realize that moving into the mainstream means loosing these types of games?

Yes Paradox could release completely unbuggy games, and yes paradox could dumb them down a bit. However, if I wanted to play civilization I would go out and buy civilization. Going out into the mainstream could be theoretically dangerous because the hardcore fans might leave and paradox would find itself battling against established products like civ and empire earth.

Of course I'm sure there is a balance, a middle road that they could walk, but I couldn't honestly tell you what that is. What would keep the average gameplayer and myself interested I do not know.

- MVSN