-
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.
You should never really trust a review like this to get too indepth with a game. That being said, IGN and Gamespot will usually steer you away from the real clunkers like Master of Orion 3, even when those games do require more time to really understand than a website review can give them.
It is funny he didn't understand the game and was complaining about bugs, but Paradox shouldn't really attack him. By just skimming the game he also missed the deeper more serious issues.
Personally I feel his final score was a bit generous, but saying the game isn't worth playing or is more work than fun is only slightly true. I find the game a ton of work, because I'm trying ot control EVERYTHING that happens (unifications, naval building, industrializing, etc.) that the AI is doing so as to produce just one fun game as the Second French Empire. It hasn't happened yet, but I'm still trying.
I'd give the game a 6/10, probably rising to an 8 if they can ever fix the lack of a disband AI, the huge army sizes, the democratic favortism, and the manpower issues. I'd go up to a 9/10 if they could fix the deeper problems with the game relating to the financial and social/political models without making the game "harder", but I realize that will never happen.
It is funny he didn't understand the game and was complaining about bugs, but Paradox shouldn't really attack him. By just skimming the game he also missed the deeper more serious issues.
Personally I feel his final score was a bit generous, but saying the game isn't worth playing or is more work than fun is only slightly true. I find the game a ton of work, because I'm trying ot control EVERYTHING that happens (unifications, naval building, industrializing, etc.) that the AI is doing so as to produce just one fun game as the Second French Empire. It hasn't happened yet, but I'm still trying.
I'd give the game a 6/10, probably rising to an 8 if they can ever fix the lack of a disband AI, the huge army sizes, the democratic favortism, and the manpower issues. I'd go up to a 9/10 if they could fix the deeper problems with the game relating to the financial and social/political models without making the game "harder", but I realize that will never happen.
I like reviews were potential is assessed versus feasability. I think the game has much potential and it's feasable to get there - look at the past,
i don't care about those details he mixed up, the conclusion should be fair. In the end it shows those reviewers do not really "like" to play Paradox games, otherwise they'll stuff the review with more accurate data,
i don't care about those details he mixed up, the conclusion should be fair. In the end it shows those reviewers do not really "like" to play Paradox games, otherwise they'll stuff the review with more accurate data,
Here we are beeing demanding like hell 
Well, Homeworld 2 for a instance got great reviews etc,but realy, it aint that good.
Ohh it's all about getting battle cruisers first, and then MP is very unstable(only reason I bought the game).
And when you look at the forums, the developers attitude is like:
Well, lucky you if you begg enough you might get a patch that fixes a couple of things.
Well I still am playing like crasy, I don't care about unrealistic things, I'm playing for the fun of it.
It might be easy to get rich etc, but then some of the superpowers are going to crunsh you, and it's good.
Can't understand the people that first says the game is to easy and then complains about getting their asses handed to them by über austria/GB/Germany/whatever.
Well, I'm of course looking forward to patches, but by looking at the forums it went from:
"woo this games rocks! Almost no buggs!"
to
"Buu, the army sizes aint realistic, world market, etc etc and so on"
The game don't got many buggs, or bigg ones.
Just things that needs tweaking.
I have not seen a game that has been complete when it reaches the market, and we should be grateful for the chance to improve the games and we are, right?
My point for victoria: 1.0 88%
1.1 90%
Well, Homeworld 2 for a instance got great reviews etc,but realy, it aint that good.
Ohh it's all about getting battle cruisers first, and then MP is very unstable(only reason I bought the game).
And when you look at the forums, the developers attitude is like:
Well, lucky you if you begg enough you might get a patch that fixes a couple of things.
Well I still am playing like crasy, I don't care about unrealistic things, I'm playing for the fun of it.
It might be easy to get rich etc, but then some of the superpowers are going to crunsh you, and it's good.
Can't understand the people that first says the game is to easy and then complains about getting their asses handed to them by über austria/GB/Germany/whatever.
Well, I'm of course looking forward to patches, but by looking at the forums it went from:
"woo this games rocks! Almost no buggs!"
to
"Buu, the army sizes aint realistic, world market, etc etc and so on"
The game don't got many buggs, or bigg ones.
Just things that needs tweaking.
I have not seen a game that has been complete when it reaches the market, and we should be grateful for the chance to improve the games and we are, right?
My point for victoria: 1.0 88%
1.1 90%
I buy and play a LOT of games. I was up until 3am last night playing Victoria, and have been playing for nearly a week straight. A game hasn't sucked me in so much in a long time. I don't need a review to tell me there is nothing to 'draw' me in. I anxiously, anxiously wait for 1.02 but I'm still having a lot of fun regardless. It's too bad IGN didn't take more time to actually get their facts straight. A shame really, since they are doing a disservice to themselves as well as Paradox.
Well it was 1.30am for me last night and I only quit then because I got my 1st, 2nd and 3rd CTD ever.Palehorse said:
It's a real shame that some reviewers don't take the time to ask questions of the developers or even the boards, if they are struggle as this guy seems to have been. As for reading the review, from what's been said here I think I'll wait for the patch like Johan said
.
Spruce said:
I'm going to disagree with you for one reason; Not all developers are Paradox. Reviewers need to stick to what they have in their hand, though if they point out the support history of a company that would be helpful.
I narrowly avoided TOEE, a game which got a great Gamespot review, mostly based on ignoring bugs and the reviewer's irrational hope that the game would be fixed. A lot of people are holding a lemon in their hands holding out hope for the potential of that game.
Actually, i haven't really run into that too-huge AI army thing; except for China, which should have the manpower to recruit 300-400 divisions, and Austria, which has conquered alot of territory, and thus their total humber of divisions isn't too fa out fo the ballpark. Most nations have less than 80 divisions, which is fair (i only have 32 carefully horded divisions, built up over 60 some years, thanks to manpower from the Belgian Congo and Belgian Sudan) I'm the 10th strongest military power, so at least i don't think that things are too screwed up.
Anyway, to be on topic with this thread. i can't reply to many of the things brought up in the review/thread. i've experienced that automatic tax revenue shift thing, just figured it was part of the game mechanism, not that is seriously impacted my revenue.
To give this game a little review:
Amazingly, i haven't experienced a single CTD, which is in big contrast to EU2, so Thumbs up to the developer!
Music is fantastic. the varying classical pieces/military marches are perfect for this game. another Thumbs up to Paradox!
Letting the computer handling trade saves me alot of trouble, until i needed to start buying items myself, or stockpile some of my own resources for big purchases and every time i tried to set the buy/sell level, the computer would overrule my trade order. then i discovered that you can switch off computer control of individual goods/resources traded. Overall, trading/ budgeting/ etc... isn't too difficult to figure out when you get the hang of it.
I like the greater graphic detail of the main map, and find the political map view very useful. Another thumbs up
i don't read the manual usually anyway, and only briefly skimmed through this one. can't give an opinion of it as a result.
as for military/power potential of nations, a minor nation like Sokoto hasn't much chance of becoming even a regional power; then again, it should be hard to colonize/claim half of Africa as them(I did it, but only with massive help from Cheat Codes ) I'm the 8th greatest power in the world, which isn't bad. main problem is that i neve have spare manpower, couldn't even field half the divisions i have without african manpower which can be magically converted into higher quality Flemish Manpower (this is a good exploit/bug, and should not be fixed). overall though, nations which shouldn't get very powerfull don't (Austria excepted).
Biggest game issue that i see is colonization/non-triggering of certain events.
The USA always goes on a mad colonizing spree from 1848-1860 and, when the civil war doesn't oocur, like in my current game, there is absolutely nothing to check it's progress, and if i had not started colonizing way before the historical time, there would have been no Belgian Congo or Belgian Sudan, they would simply have been 2 more US colonies, along with Okinawa/most the of pacific islands, nigeria, cameroon, chad, niger, algeria, etc... to keep the us out of more african territory, i had buy and sell and trade most of equatorial/southern africa to those nations which should have chance at colonizing those areas, as Belgium i could have owned half of the continent by the 1860's. though instead i sold/gave/traded most of the territory apart from Congo/Southern Sudan to Prussia, Britain, Ethiopia, etc...
While in my other couple of games the Civil War/Suez Canal etc... triggered, in my current game, alot of important events/things that probably should have happened did not (Suez Canal, German/Italian unification, British Intevention in Egypt(which likely didn't happen due to Suez Canal not happening), US civil war, etc)
Other than this, i see no major game issues, so overall i says kudos to the Design/Developing Team at Paradox for a great game, i don't feel competent enough/have not played enough to assign an accurate rating, so i won't.
Hope the developers find this very general review and my observations helpful and at least somewhat informative
(I wonder if Belgium should really be as a great a power as i've made it anyway?)
Anyway, to be on topic with this thread. i can't reply to many of the things brought up in the review/thread. i've experienced that automatic tax revenue shift thing, just figured it was part of the game mechanism, not that is seriously impacted my revenue.
To give this game a little review:
Amazingly, i haven't experienced a single CTD, which is in big contrast to EU2, so Thumbs up to the developer!
Music is fantastic. the varying classical pieces/military marches are perfect for this game. another Thumbs up to Paradox!
Letting the computer handling trade saves me alot of trouble, until i needed to start buying items myself, or stockpile some of my own resources for big purchases and every time i tried to set the buy/sell level, the computer would overrule my trade order. then i discovered that you can switch off computer control of individual goods/resources traded. Overall, trading/ budgeting/ etc... isn't too difficult to figure out when you get the hang of it.
I like the greater graphic detail of the main map, and find the political map view very useful. Another thumbs up
i don't read the manual usually anyway, and only briefly skimmed through this one. can't give an opinion of it as a result.
as for military/power potential of nations, a minor nation like Sokoto hasn't much chance of becoming even a regional power; then again, it should be hard to colonize/claim half of Africa as them(I did it, but only with massive help from Cheat Codes
) I'm the 8th greatest power in the world, which isn't bad. main problem is that i neve have spare manpower, couldn't even field half the divisions i have without african manpower which can be magically converted into higher quality Flemish Manpower (this is a good exploit/bug, and should not be fixed). overall though, nations which shouldn't get very powerfull don't (Austria excepted).Biggest game issue that i see is colonization/non-triggering of certain events.
The USA always goes on a mad colonizing spree from 1848-1860 and, when the civil war doesn't oocur, like in my current game, there is absolutely nothing to check it's progress, and if i had not started colonizing way before the historical time, there would have been no Belgian Congo or Belgian Sudan, they would simply have been 2 more US colonies, along with Okinawa/most the of pacific islands, nigeria, cameroon, chad, niger, algeria, etc... to keep the us out of more african territory, i had buy and sell and trade most of equatorial/southern africa to those nations which should have chance at colonizing those areas, as Belgium i could have owned half of the continent by the 1860's. though instead i sold/gave/traded most of the territory apart from Congo/Southern Sudan to Prussia, Britain, Ethiopia, etc...
While in my other couple of games the Civil War/Suez Canal etc... triggered, in my current game, alot of important events/things that probably should have happened did not (Suez Canal, German/Italian unification, British Intevention in Egypt(which likely didn't happen due to Suez Canal not happening), US civil war, etc)
Other than this, i see no major game issues, so overall i says kudos to the Design/Developing Team at Paradox for a great game, i don't feel competent enough/have not played enough to assign an accurate rating, so i won't.
Hope the developers find this very general review and my observations helpful and at least somewhat informative
(I wonder if Belgium should really be as a great a power as i've made it anyway?)