8.5 GS... You Crazy

It's impossible to condense an experience as broad and as rich as Empire: Total War to a few thousand words. Its complex amalgam of turn-based empire building and real-time skirmishing is exciting and involving, and it's both fuller and more streamlined than its predecessors. But like those predecessors, it inspires that compulsion to accomplish just one last turn, even when your eyes are bleary and your body longs for sleep.Kevin-V

Sure sounds like an 8.5 to me. :roll: A little contradiction is always nice.

[QUOTE="Kevin-V"]It's impossible to condense an experience as broad and as rich as Empire: Total War to a few thousand words. Its complex amalgam of turn-based empire building and real-time skirmishing is exciting and involving, and it's both fuller and more streamlined than its predecessors. But like those predecessors, it inspires that compulsion to accomplish just one last turn, even when your eyes are bleary and your body longs for sleep._Pinbot_

Sure sounds like an 8.5 to me. :roll: A little contradiction is always nice.

[QUOTE="Master-Thief-09"][QUOTE="jonesy1911"]8.5 is a superb score, wtf is wrong with people these days.jonesy1911

[QUOTE="Kevin-V"]It's impossible to condense an experience as broad and as rich as Empire: Total War to a few thousand words. Its complex amalgam of turn-based empire building and real-time skirmishing is exciting and involving, and it's both fuller and more streamlined than its predecessors. But like those predecessors, it inspires that compulsion to accomplish just one last turn, even when your eyes are bleary and your body longs for sleep._Pinbot_

Sure sounds like an 8.5 to me. :roll: A little contradiction is always nice.

Technology is also a limited diplomatic option, given that it's a commodity that you can not only trade during negotiations but also steal from foes. Additionally, it's not easy to convince a friendly nation to offer technology. Even when offered multiple technologies or monetary compensation, your closest allies rarely accept a request to share even a single technology, which makes it a limited political tool. In Empire: Total War, knowledge is more easily stolen than shared...

The other reason you'll want to play out most battles in real time is that the real-time AI is weak and can be exploited to your advantage. Enemy troops often fail to engage you, even when under direct fire. It isn't uncommon for your AI opponent to use only a few units at any given time and let you get an early upper hand, particularly when you have taken care with your formations during the deployment phase. This is especially true on settlement maps, in which narrow paths must be taken into account and buildings can be used for garrisoning. The AI is often confused by garrisoned troops, letting cavalry get pummeled by gunfire without taking any steps to reposition, even at higher difficulty settings. And at times the artificial intelligence is outright broken. On multiple occasions, we watched units refuse to engage or respond to attack commands, our own troops and the enemy troops milling among each other as if they were at a cocktail party rather than in the midst of battle. Other battle quirks--such as rare moments when movement across the map occurs in slow motion, as if troops are moving through mud instead of a grassy field--may also crop up...

But as with land warfare, the AI seems incapable of managing the battle with much success on normal and hard difficulties. In dozens upon dozens of naval battles, the enemy deployed ships in the same exact manner and always focused on doing hull damage, but never on alternate strategies such as using grape shot to whittle down a crew and then initiating boarding...

However, you may very well need to turn down your graphics options when entering an online match, lest the frame rate drop to a crawl under the weight of the game's ambitions. Indeed, Empire: Total War requires a lot of horsepower to run, and it's prone to peculiar behavior, even on systems that exceed recommended requirements. We experienced a few crashes on several machines, and the game tends to slow the longer that it has been running...Kevin-V

[QUOTE="jonesy1911"][QUOTE="_Pinbot_"]

Yes, but when the reviewer seems to constantly have a different opinion than the majority of the population then something seems a bit strange. The job is to give an honest and unbiased opinion of the game.

_Pinbot_

or they dont think the game is the second coming of christ that the others make it out to be.

these points could be valid if they gave it a 4/10 or something, but its not.

Empire sucks the big fat one compared to Medieval 2.Samox

They should move Kevin-V to make console reviews. First Endwar getting 6 while console gets 7, and PC version has no problem at all.

RyuRanVII

no problems at all? you mean besides teh fact that it was an extremely dumbed down consolised RTS on a platform that **** out better RTSs daily?

[QUOTE="Cherokee_Jack"][QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

:roll: Wow, an 8.5 is so bad. For same gamespot, you have no credibility for giving a game a GREAT score. Just throw out constant AAA like everyone else, that'll earn you respect.

Seriously, so much crying over .5 off what yoy wanted. Gamespot and you disagree,. Don't make it sound like they are wrong and you are right. When you have your own review scale, and write reviews to multiple games, then you can cry. Until then, you disagree with there score, no more than that.

I swear the people on SW are all about the conspiracy theories.

ActicEdge

Yes, because I've played Madworld and know enough to review it myself :roll: Like I'm even going to buy Madworld. (shakes head)

Also, 7.5 is a good score, it says good underneath it. I've enjoyed games with lesser scores than 8.5 and not had to cry and shout bias about it. This is just funny, if you can't see it, well, good for you.

I'm not saying I can't enjoy the game. It really doesn't affect my real-world buying decision at all if GS scores it a bit lower than most sites, but this is entirely about SW. I was taking an AAA score for granted after it went AAA almost everywhere else, so naturally I feel a little cheated when GS hands out the lowest score listed on Metacritic.

[QUOTE="Master-Thief-09"][QUOTE="jonesy1911"]You must be american too, when i said superb i didnt mean it literally as in the little word under the 9 score, it is merely a word i used to discribe in my opinion what I think of the overall score it got, I've been on these boards alot longer than yourself so I'm sure i know what the actual wording is for each score. Geezjonesy1911

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

[QUOTE="Cherokee_Jack"] Well, maybe you'll change your tune when MadWorld gets a 7.5. Just a .5 difference, you know.Cherokee_Jack

Yes, because I've played Madworld and know enough to review it myself :roll: Like I'm even going to buy Madworld. (shakes head)

Also, 7.5 is a good score, it says good underneath it. I've enjoyed games with lesser scores than 8.5 and not had to cry and shout bias about it. This is just funny, if you can't see it, well, good for you.

I'm not saying I can't enjoy the game. It really doesn't affect my real-world buying decision at all if GS scores it a bit lower than most sites, but this is entirely about SW. I was taking an AAA score for granted after it went AAA almost everywhere else, so naturally I feel a little cheated when GS hands out the lowest score listed on Metacritic.

That's fine except for 2 things:

1. Why then did you assume I'd be different for Madworld
2. Why would you assume a game is guarenteed AAA on gamespot and why does it matter if they are the lowest score when they handed the game a 8.5? Yeah it sucks there will be no ownage and gloating but whining over an 8.5? It seems rather ridiculous. I mean if they gave it like a 5 or even a 7 that would be different but an 8.5 is means for creaming bias. It just sounds silly to me honestly epecially when we all know the game is great.

I was appaled to see that GS has given Empire Total War, one of the greatest games of all time an 8.5. This is total bull**** and nothing else. This is proof that GS has now become one of the worst reviewers of videogames on the internet. For shame.

_Pinbot_

gotta love SW politics.

[QUOTE="Master-Thief-09"][QUOTE="jonesy1911"]You don't even understand what I'm trying to get across, yes and 8.5 is a GREAT game according to gamespot, for a game to get 8.5 is superb in my eyes as most people seem to think anything below a 9 is not worth playing and this is not the case, again JOG ON.jonesy1911

[QUOTE="Cherokee_Jack"]

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

Yes, because I've played Madworld and know enough to review it myself :roll: Like I'm even going to buy Madworld. (shakes head)

Also, 7.5 is a good score, it says good underneath it. I've enjoyed games with lesser scores than 8.5 and not had to cry and shout bias about it. This is just funny, if you can't see it, well, good for you.

ActicEdge

I'm not saying I can't enjoy the game. It really doesn't affect my real-world buying decision at all if GS scores it a bit lower than most sites, but this is entirely about SW. I was taking an AAA score for granted after it went AAA almost everywhere else, so naturally I feel a little cheated when GS hands out the lowest score listed on Metacritic.

That's fine except for 2 things:

1. Why then did you assume I'd be different for Madworld
2. Why would you assume a game is guarenteed AAA on gamespot and why does it matter if they are the lowest score when they handed the game a 8.5? Yeah it sucks there will be no ownage and gloating but whining over an 8.5? It seems rather ridiculous. I mean if they gave it like a 5 or even a 7 that would be different but an 8.5 is means for creaming bias. It just sounds silly to me honestly epecially when we all know the game is great.

1. I assumed you cared more about Madworld than about E:TW, which maybe I was wrong about. It was just a throwaway comment, nothing serious.
2. I don't really think there's bias involved, just that it's a disappointment and seems like a non-sequitur.

what's wrong with 8.5??? I don't understand. I played games that got scores lower than that. You don't have to always agree with the reviewer opinions.

what's wrong with 8.5???OPuniverse

It's Gamespot, what do you expect. It misses its mark yet again.millerlight89

**** the reviewers! Let the fanboys decide!

Nah, gamespot, they just HAVE to do one of this for every system. I feel your pain hermits, I'm still getting the game in summer though. As a note, Kevin Vanord can't review RTS's, look at C&C 3, it was crap and got a 9.0.

Another PC game docked for being technically astounding and hardware hog. Its common among PC reviews... just add an extra point and leave it at that.

kevin only loves casual Rts's...

btw i never had the game crash on me and i spent hours playing.. only performance hitches that happens once every 3 hours.. about ai, its decent there was only one time where it was just horrible, they were just standing there while getting shot up,, when i said standning im mean they froze, no animation

other then that 9

Gamespot generally scores games lower than everybody else.

Every time they do it, everybody acts all shocked. "OMFG! Gamespot did what they always do!!1!" :|

Besides, their complaints are completely legitimate, and somebody has to give it the lowest score anyways.

Besides, their complaints are completely legitimate, and somebody has to give it the lowest score anyways.t3hTwinky

8.5 is a superb score, wtf is wrong with people these days.jonesy1911

Gamespot generally scores games lower than everybody else.

Every time they do it, everybody acts all shocked. "OMFG! Gamespot did what they always do!!1!" :|

Besides, their complaints are completely legitimate, and somebody has to give it the lowest score anyways.

t3hTwinky

I don't know why everyone is so surprised. Gamespot has always been really tough on pc games. You think Resistance 2 would of got a 9.0 if it was pc exclusive?RawDeal_basic

This is just as bad as the 8.9 Zelda got.

Wow have they ever missed the ball on this one, Embaressing for gamespot.

This game got nearly 9.5 on every site

[QUOTE="t3hTwinky"]

Gamespotgenerallyscores games lower than everybody else.

Every time they do it, everybody acts all shocked. "OMFG! Gamespot did what they always do!!1!" :|

Besides, their complaints are completely legitimate, and somebody has to give it the lowest score anyways.

surrealnumber5

1. Read the underlined.

2. ONOZ NOT A 0.7 DIFFERENCE CAN U SAY BIASED!!??

Technically that isn't true. Everyone could easily rate the same. Very unlikely but still possible.

foxhound_fox

Technically it IS true, because the lowest score would be the score everybody gave it, meaning that everybody would have given the game the lowest score, thus making them all terrible reveiwers and biased just like Gamespot.

Sweet, sweet PC fanboy tears.

Sweet, sweet PC fanboy tears.

lolfaqs

Uh, it got the same score as Medieval 2: Total War, so no surprises there. :P

8.5 = Great

Maybe I'm crazy though.

Jackboot343

[QUOTE="lolfaqs"]

Sweet, sweet PC fanboy tears.

anshul89

So? Some guy played it, some guy reviewed it and then gave it a score. What's the problem?

PC Gaming is dying after all....................................................

8.5 is a superb score, wtf is wrong with people these days.jonesy1911

[QUOTE="jonesy1911"]8.5 is a superb score, wtf is wrong with people these days.king_bobo