Game Rating for AE

[sfbaytf]

Not that I really give a rat's you know what about what the reviewers think, I was pretty surprised to see HOIT3 get such high ratings from the online game sites.

I can only wonder what they'll give AE-if they bother to even review it.

Personally I'd give AE a 8.9 rating.

[Graymane]

The kind of people that rate/read game ratings to figure out what to play are not really the kind of people you'll generally find playing AE.

[sfbaytf]

You're probably right, still I'd like to see some exposure and hope the sales are good and all those involved make some $$$ for their efforts.

To me WitP/AE is strategy game with chess, poker and craps rolled into one with some hands on history thrown in.

If they could ever figure out a way to port it to a handheld (can't see this as being practical today-but I could forsee a time when it might) I'd be playing just about everywhere.

[LarryP]

ORIGINAL: sfbaytf

Not that I really give a rat's you know what about what the reviewers think, I was pretty surprised to see HOIT3 get such high ratings from the online game sites.

GameSpot gave HOI3 an 8.5. Clearly the reviewer knows nothing about history of that time period. They also did not play the entire game or for very long, else they would have rated it much lower.

Past reviews have shown that the regular gaming sites do not have the right people to review war games that are not pure action, like Call Of Duty and Supreme Commander types. They would NEVER do AE justice, and they would just belittle the game with their ignorance.

I hope they don't review AE. 'They' meaning GameSpot and similar, including PCGamer magazine.

[pad152]

99.999% of gamer reviews wouldn't get past the first turn in AE.

[jazman]

AE is the PhD of computer games. It doesn't make sense without the literature survey (read the manual) or the many experiments and case studies (1000 restarts against the AI). The dissertation is a head-to-head game.

[jazman]

So now I have a sig. Let me know if it's too pompous for you guys.

[LarryP]

ORIGINAL: jazman

So now I have a sig. Let me know if it's too pompous for you guys.

Makes good sense to me!

[sfbaytf]

What surprises me is some of the reviews of HOIT3 don't mention the glaring map errors.

Mabye the reviewers have no knowledge of geography-which wouldn't surprise me. A recent study discovered many college students actually failed a basic geography quiz.

[Templer_12]

Caution here.

Most ratings are a sum of different categories.
In general, there are categories such as graphics and sound.
WitP:AE will not score here.
On such a raiting system the raitings won´t be high.
There are many potential buyers looking for such overall evaluations game raitings.
Myself, 20 years ago was searching exact for such overall ratings.
Raitings driven - why should I buy a game if it´s "only" a C+?

Another problem is that the reviewer usually only superficially deal with the game.
No one get in WitP:AE in a few hours/days.
Which reviewer will take several days to get to deal with it? Or takes holiday for reading half of the manual?
Also I´m sure, these rookie reviewer will call most of the issue they don´t understand a bug.
We don´t want to see such a raiting, right? [:-]

However, there are reviewer for the game with an eye for depth and quality. Reviewer of mature and a knowing of quality.
Reviewer are not writing for the mainstream, and for eyecandy loving teenagers, XBOX and Playstation magazines.
This is to be hoped.

A reviewer who knows WitP would be a good choice/chance I think.

[BPRE]

ORIGINAL: sfbaytf

You're probably right, still I'd like to see some exposure and hope the sales are good and all those involved make some $$$ for their efforts.

To me WitP/AE is strategy game with chess, poker and craps rolled into one with some hands on history thrown in.

If they could ever figure out a way to port it to a handheld (can't see this as being practical today-but I could forsee a time when it might) I'd be playing just about everywhere.

Don't know exactly what you mean by handheld but it does run on a Netbook. I haven't really tried playing as the screen is a bit limited but it definitely starts and the little I've tried it it seems to run fine.

/BPRE

[sfbaytf]

Good to hear you're running it on a netbook, cause I'm going to get one soon. Doesn't surprise me. They are quite powerful these days.

As for handheld device I meant something the size of a smartphone. The display won't cut it, but the day of ePaper and other devices that will project images or project full screen images viewable with an eyepiece or special glasses will hit the consumer market sooner rather than later.

[ceyan]

ORIGINAL: LarryP

ORIGINAL: sfbaytf

Not that I really give a rat's you know what about what the reviewers think, I was pretty surprised to see HOIT3 get such high ratings from the online game sites.

GameSpot gave HOI3 an 8.5. Clearly the reviewer knows nothing about history of that time period. They also did not play the entire game or for very long, else they would have rated it much lower.

Past reviews have shown that the regular gaming sites do not have the right people to review war games that are not pure action, like Call Of Duty and Supreme Commander types. They would NEVER do AE justice, and they would just belittle the game with their ignorance.

I hope they don't review AE. 'They' meaning GameSpot and similar, including PCGamer magazine.

Unless its an FPS, I trust most reviewers about as well as I trust a crook, so I agree with you on that respect. Actually, from a in-depth game perspective, I really only look at Wargamer.com and Outofeight.info who have proven to be a pretty reasonable and straight-forward with their reviews.

But, on the other hand, I think you're missing the point of a game review based on your comments. For example, you imply that Hearts of Iron 3 is deserving of a bad review, but why? It has some bugs, sure, but now-a-days you can't rate a game on its bugs because I can count the number of games that have been released in a reasonably playable/stable state over the past several years on one hand. With that in mind, I'm assuming you're talking about the nature of its historical representation, or lack there of currently.

The problem with that idea is that you may care about that in your game, but that doesn't necessarily mean everyone does. As with Hearts of Iron 3, you obviously would rate it low, but there are people (who have posted on the Paradox Forums at least) that absolutely love the game and would probably rate it higher than what Gamespot has. For all its current faults (in my opinion) I think Hearts of Iron 3 offers an insane amount of improvement for the gamer who isn't interested in micromanagement (local AI control of your units, better air mission coverage and less air/naval mission micromanagement), which is something your average Gamespot subscriber probably cares about.

I don't hate/distrust Gamespot's reviews because I feel their reviewers are incompetent (although I will admit I've thought that a few times on specific cases), but because they cater to a point of view drastically different than mine. That doesn't necessarily make them bad or wrong, and there has been times when they've crossed the line into outright ridiculousness, it just makes them different.

Long story short, you shouldn't outright dismiss game reviewers just because you feel they're dropping the ball or missing something critical. Challenge the review if you feel its out of place, but recognize that sometimes the reviewer is looking at factors you don't consider important anymore, because you've gone past that or just don't care about those details anymore. I would hope that an honest review of WitP:AE would generate a good score with a well written write-up, but even if it doesn't you shouldn't hold the opinion that "regular gaming sites do not have the right people to review war games that are not pure action." They do have that right, because otherwise how would the gaming world grow? If Gamespot (or the others) gives it a good review, it generates more attention for the game from people who normally wouldn't have even know about it. If they give it a bad review, then the game still gets exposure and may attract attention from people who are interested in the game despite the bad review. What is more likely, that a bad review on a "regular gaming site" would cause someone who was interested in the game to be put off by it or that a bad review on a "regular gaming site" would cause people who never even heard of the game to have some exposure to it and be a potential buyer in the future? (After all, even some of the worst games ever made still have some sales)

[Zebedee]

I'll be doing a review for the subsection of a fairly sizeable website. Just need to play a bit more before I sit down and write it though. Want to see as much as possible to give as fair and balanced a review as possible.

[Terminus]

AE would probably get slightly higher ratings than stock WitP, because it's prettier...[:D]

[DeriKuk]

Ratings may also depend on the size and weight of the box . . . as well as the picture on the lid. [8|]

[Caltone]

For me this is just a better incarnation of the greatest PC game ever made. I've been playing PC games since the early 80's and enjoy several genres. I've spent more hours with this series than any other and that includes my trip down the rabbit hole of MMORPG's a few years ago, time sinks that they are.

I give this one a true ---11---

[Scott_USN]

9.8

With a patch maybe 2 (not going to ask for the moon on the first)

It will be 10 hands down I have already played it more hours than most games, already have my money back 10 fold.

[Scott_USN]

PC Game "Professionals" are wrong almost always unless it is obvious. They play a game or as in many cases don't even play them and then review them and you know they didn't play them because simple things escape them.

I don't care about reviews all I know is what i like not what some reviewer thinks. Same with movies.

[AttuWatcher]

"E" for everyone [8D]