HOMM IV AI was pathetic. the only fun I had in that game was clicking on shiny thingies on the map. if that got 4.5 score for the AI, GalCiv should get 100. that's all I have to say on this issue

Thats funny, alot of people who had only followed the games development were posting for weeks that GalCiv was going to be great. Its on these forums and other forums, I never saw them get told they're thoughts didn't matter till the played it. Just because I take a more cautious approach when it comes to new games I have no right?

And I wasn't even commenting on gameplay, it was comparing his review and what people found so wrong with it. I've so far got what equates to being a number off(which by the way, I checked and he mentions Class 15 being the minimum habitable without penaltys in earlier part of review), and his observantion on the AI trades, minor things.

I don't expect the creators site itself to have many people agreeing with what so many view a "bad" review really. I also don't frequent Usenet or other GalCiv related forums. As for the QuarterToThree forums, last I was on there all I saw was arrogance and petty rivalreies between reviewers.

As for your analogy it really doesn't make sense, yes if a reviewer said that serious questions would be drawn up. But nowhere does he claim the AI is terrible and gameplay is horrible. Most of the gameplay summary is praise but I will agree the intelligence summary is dominated by what he didn't like. However reading through the previous two pages he does tell of some good things.

I've seen alot of claims and insults thrown around, i've also been told I can't have thoughts on it. But i've yet to see a good number of glaring errors and ommisions. Nor can I find where he said he was losing to the AI and that it was too hard, except for random events. If theres so many and so glaring show them, not that his view of the frequent AI trading isn't right because you can do X things yourself, despite how tedious it would be.

Thank you those that have responded to what i've said, isntead of just saying my thoughts didn't matter and ignoring my reply and questions. I can understand if you don't want to point out every little detail, I just wanted the glaring ones. And depending apon the demo I might buy the game. The review didn't make me leery, some of the responses to it did.

The review pretty much told me what I already know from reading other peoples experiences. The main thing he disliked was the random events(which from what I understand still cannot be turned off, only certain ones delayed), all the AI deals and what may be the AI doing useless things. For most things he had praise, like the tech tree and the numerous updates promised. Anyway, i'll just continue to wait for the demo.

Abe, this will be the last post I make on this.

If all responses made by people who have actually played the game here, on Usenet, on other forums universally condemn the review, and we're talking 100% here with quite a few different people, shouldn't that tell you that maybe, just maybe, there was something wrong with the review? Until his correction, GalCiv had received the lowest AI rating Avault has ever given to a strategy game. Even "Wargasm" got a better score in the AI category.

Do you understand: Avault gave GalCiv's AI the lowest score it has ever given a strategy game in the entire 5 year history of strategy games. The AI in GalCiv is the part of the game that people are most raving about. It is the primary part of the game Gamespot highlights as well as Games Domain. It's not that he just had some problem with the AI, he gave it the lowest rating of any AI in Avault's entire history. Thnk about that. Think about some of the games that have come out in the past 4 years that had almots no AI. Remember Superpower? The game where Mexico would try to invade Japan? It got a higher AI rating than they originally gave GalCiv. Outpost 2? Higher.

His entire review revolves around this because as a single player turn based strategy game it is all about interacting with the computer players and since he believed the AI is the worst AI ever created for a strategy game when that flies in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, one has to ask: How can you possibly defend the review??

I am not going to go through the whole review again. I have detailed through other posts here and on the avault forum and especially via private email to Avault the various problems with the review. So have others.

~SDC~

Brad,

You have addressed this issue beyond what could be expected. Everybody except this one particular person seems to understand the reality of the situation. Even the reviewer and his boss have stated their mistake and have promised a revised review. I wonder if Abe will complain to the reviewer that his second review is not correct since it wasn't his first impression? Either way, you should walk away now and not bother to suffice this one person who just doesn't seem to get it.

BTW, don't even try to turn this against me Abe since you won't get the time of day from me. Oh, and I do own the game but haven't played one singe game yet due to personal time constraints so don't even try to consider me a fanboy. Instead I am merely an outside objective observer who can see things for what they really are.

The second review's been up--it's probably the one you read. It's not much more favorable.

I think the reviewer makes a couple of valid points (watching 75 corvettes wander around really isn't that much fun, for example). He hosed the overall objectivity of his review, though, when he implied the AI was cheating. I fail to see how the discussion could have become anything more than an argument at that point.

I do agree that we're long past constructive at this point.

~SDC~

"For most things he had praise"

And if someone had mostly praise for a game.. how in the world could he come up with the conclusion that he couldn't recommend it? Ok.. to be specific, could not recommend it out of the box. Which is a copout. He doesn't recommend it. Yet he has all this praise for it.

2+2=4, not 12,851. It doesn't add up.

fleabitfox

Wait, I have one more thing to say to Abe:

Abe, If you were to read a review from someone who had never touched the game would it have any credibility? Of course not. So you should be able to understand why it would be irritating to see someone with no experience (YOU) back up that piss-poor review when you have no evidence to support it.

~SDC~

If you colonise a Class 14 planet, then build the Soil Enhancement and Habitat Improvement social projects on the planet, what do you get?
A Class 16 planet.

Anyone else thinking that the reviewer failed to realise that the AI only colonising C16 or C17 planets could actually be the AI colonising C15 planets and improving them? :notsure:

~SDC~

I think he gave intelligence and difficulty 3.5 stars not 2?

Ignore my previous post. I didn't realise that this thread is 5 pages long But now that I have read all five pages I realise what I posted was what everyone knew.

I'm going to go and sleep.

Just one question Brad: Did you post the score to the metaverse after you beat his saved game in 8 turns?

~SDC~

Ok, I'd be brief to give my thoughts : methinks that the reviewer didn't enjoy the game, and is not even a big fan of any Strat games (by reading his "bio" on the site). His remarks on graphics/sounds really make think he usually review FPS or WBG (whiz bang games LOL )
He didn't enjoy the game much, didn't play it much neither, and finally he was pissed of by the AI/Events and by not being dragged at all by the game pace and story.
He DID however notice (or was said...) that the game was good overall, and couldn't just say it doesn't like it... So he tried to be factual, and then ... :notsure:

Well, the AI *DOES* cheat, so whats the fuss about ? It even says so in the manual if I recall correctly.

Slapbone, actually, yes I did. Check my profile to see it.

I don't think it was '8 turns' but 8 game years.

Anyway, people who are worth their salt in the strategy game buying public will look at his review for what it is: Complete tripe.

Brad: The fans are doing the talking for you now, trust me: I've already turned have a dozen people off the fence to buy this game!

Please don't waste another breath on a useless review(er).

Ignore my last post, it pretty much only replied to the first line of the first post

I've never before heard of GalCiv, and played it only one weekend, and I already found serious mistakes in the review in nearly every paragraph. So in two days testing a game, without even reading the manual, I learned more about it then the guy who wrote the review. That's pretty sad. I can easily see why the programmers (frogboy is one of the galciv programmers, right ?) would be enraged, or at least seriously annoyed by that review, especially if one of them was kind of a member of the reviewing page - you'd kind feel betrayed by a badly researched review from someone you expected to be on your side unless proven otherwise.

Also don't forget that a bad review, and especially a review that undeserved bad, will cost the programmers real life cash, the kind you buy your food with. A bad review means a bit more then just hurt pride - thats worse enough if a product is really bad, but unexcuseable if it isnt. It's like taking someones money and burning it to cinders because you had a bad day at the office.

Ok sorry...* years. But an attaboy to Brad for showing this guy the light of truth.

twisti: You pretty much nailed it on the head.

For 2 years I've freely written articles for Avault. I don't expect any special treatment for that. But I did expect them to take reviewing the game seriously. The editors there KNEW GalCiv was getting rave reviews everywhere else and had seen the general response. When their reviewer rated the game as having the worst AI in gaming history, that should NEVER have made it up without serious consideration.

I feel we were treated very shabbily. Many of my columns there have focused on how indie developers get second rate tratement by reviewers because the feeling goes "if I haven't heard of developer X and game Y, there's probably a reason" and hence we don't get the benefit of the doubt.

I don't think it would have been asking much for Avault to have assigned the review to one of its most trusted reviewers or for one of the staff to do it themselves. Brian himself reviewed MOO 3. But for GalCiv, they couldn't be troubled with reviewing it themselves and so they hand it off to one of their unpaid volunteers.

We weren't hoping for special treatment, only EQUAL treatment. Gamespot, for instance, had the same person review GalCiv as MOO 3. So did Games Domain. And at Avault MOO 3 got reviewed by Brian himself. But GalCiv? Nope, Avault apparently didn't feel we deserved equal treatment to MOO 3 despite the hundreds of pages of articles I'd freely provided to them. I don't think it would have been too much to ask that Brian take the time to have reviewed GalCiv just as he did MOO 3.

~SDC~

Twisti said:
"Also don't forget that a bad review, and especially a review that undeserved bad, will cost the programmers real life cash, the kind you buy your food with. A bad review means a bit more then just hurt pride - thats worse enough if a product is really bad, but unexcuseable if it isnt. It's like taking someones money and burning it to cinders because you had a bad day at the office."


I've bought a drengin subscription and a shelf copy for my brother (I wanted the manual and he'll never miss it). I'm trying to think of someone else I know who would play it.


But on a serious note I read all of this thread and the avault thread. I know if someone threatens my liveleyhood (especially by his ignorance or negligence) it's time for confrontation. Personally I have 4 kids, a wife, and a good job and the money is good as long as I keep getting it, but there have been a few times in my short life (I'm 33) where I've had to drop the hammer of truth and justice on someone for situations just like this one.

The guy just couldn't understand why Brad whas all over him. It was because he attacked Brad personally and put his credibility at jeopardy. People like that just don't realize how presenting false information ripples through the lives of the targets. This guy let his pride get in the way and refused to acknowledge the facts. In doing so, he ruined the credibility of Avault (at least with me). Especially since the editors were so ready to come to this schlep's rescue.

Well, anyway...

~SDC~

Brad, you nailed the sole reason why you got a bad review in one of your replies on avault:

"GalCiv had very little marketing prior to release. The only thing that has made it so popular is word of mouth. People who like the game and tell others about it. If it has a large fan base at this point, I think one could argue that this is because a large percentage of people exposed to the game like the game."

You had little marketing and that means dollars given to web sites prior to release. And I don't want to hear anyone saying that's conspiracy crap. It is not in industries best interests for small indie developers to do well. The publishers get hurt, the rags that support them get hurt, the whole distribution chain get hurt.

If you don't play ball, then you get f00ked. That's the way it goes. It's sad. Makes me mad as hell, but that is how it works.

Sorry Huz, but Avault doesn't work that way. Some bad decisions were made in this case, but to suggest that Avault gave a bad review due to monetary reasons is just wrong. Unless you count the fact that the reviewer wasn't paid, but he's not paid for any review.

~SDC~

http://www.avault.com/

Count the ads. I count 8.

~SDC~

I think you missed the point. There's no link between those ads and the review.

~SDC~

Your point was that Avault has no monetary reason to give good or bad reviews. My point is that they do.

~SDC~

Maybe I should rephrase...money doesn't influence a review other than the fact that apparently some reviewers aren't paid.

~SDC~