I thought editors were supposed to, you know, edit?
The review might get pulled. GameSpot's original Natural Selection 2 review was removed for inaccuracies: http://www.gamespot.com/articles/natural-selection-2-review-pulled/1100-6399748/
I stopped paying attention to gamespot reviews the moment they started outsourcing. GS should have the review pulled and redone..its not right to have such a poorly done review reflect the game's MC
Lol this is the same guy who reviewed SCII:LoTV and complained it was too complex (this was after he claimed he played 50 hours of it I believe). Also gave LoTV an 8 with the only bullet point negative as complex gameplay (from an RTS? What did you expect?). He also mentioned poor dialogue, but really I don't think that's a 2 point loss, as most video games are probably just as bad. Also the LoTV reivew was really short too, and no video review.
I think he's just not great at RTS games and just got overwhelmed by this game and didn't give it a chance. Why GameSpot is outsourcing RTS games to someone who finds SC too complex is beyond me.
But complexity is like the point of playing rts games.
Lol this is the same guy who reviewed SCII:LoTV and complained it was too complex (this was after he claimed he played 50 hours of it I believe). Also gave LoTV an 8 with the only bullet point negative as complex gameplay (from an RTS? What did you expect?). He also mentioned poor dialogue, but really I don't think that's a 2 point loss, as most video games are probably just as bad. Also the LoTV reivew was really short too, and no video review.
I think he's just not great at RTS games and just got overwhelmed by this game and didn't give it a chance. Why GameSpot is outsourcing RTS games to someone who finds SC too complex is beyond me.
But complexity is like the point of playing rts games.
of course..but try explaining that to a person that doesn't play the genre. Its like reviewing an JRPG and complaining about not being able to customize your own class or character.
Lol this is the same guy who reviewed SCII:LoTV and complained it was too complex (this was after he claimed he played 50 hours of it I believe). Also gave LoTV an 8 with the only bullet point negative as complex gameplay (from an RTS? What did you expect?). He also mentioned poor dialogue, but really I don't think that's a 2 point loss, as most video games are probably just as bad. Also the LoTV reivew was really short too, and no video review.
I think he's just not great at RTS games and just got overwhelmed by this game and didn't give it a chance. Why GameSpot is outsourcing RTS games to someone who finds SC too complex is beyond me.
SOB , ಠ__ಠ..... now it makes me wonder how he's gonna handle total war: warhammer
Shame that gamespot doesn't even have a single reviewer who can review a bit more complex games. All they do is over hype shallow garbage. I knew this will happen when Kevin VanOrd left. He was the last good reviewer on gamespot. Did I always agree with his opinion? Of course not. Did he know what he was talking about? Fvck yeah.
I didn't buy Ashes because I thought it looked incomplete, rather shallow and likely short lived with awesome visuals. It was still in early access at that time though , so I don't know how much it has evolved since then.
I guess the reviewer spent about as much time playing as I did before jumping that conclusion.
@lawlessx: But read the blurb at the bottom of the SCII LoTV review, he claims to have played the original numerous times (meaning he should be aware of how the genre plays, which makes this whole thing even more ridiculous). I'd say he very, very, very casually played it a good amount, or is being dishonest about his SC experience. Anyone with that much RTS experience shouldn't be having this much trouble reviewing RTS games...
SCII mp is in fact a nightmare catering to clicksperminute fetishists, FWIW. There are far better RTS experiences out there, including SCII's own campaigns
So the Stardock CEO isn't happy with his game recieving a 4/10 on Gamespot. I didn't play the game so I can't speak on if that review is fair or not but I do like the idea of game developers going after reviewers if they feel that the review is unfair. It's actually quite funny to me hopefully the guy Daniel Starkey who did this review will make a response to him to explain himself. Did anyone here even play this game? I would like to hear from you and if you didn't play it then do you think game developers should go after reviewers or is it wrong because they are entitled to have their own opinion?
Ashes of the Singularity needs unique hero characters (with their unique personality) and proper story plot like Star Craft.
Atm, Ashes of the Singularity's RTS game play seems to be OK (I would give it 7.5/10). The game engine is excellent for .... historical time line RTS with war heros/generals.
I enjoyed SC2's RTS modeling, story plot and characters.
@mirgamer: To be fair he's probably paid per review. So spending more time on a smaller game that won't really get much attention would probably not be good for his wallet.
Ah, a Freelance writer strikes again! And this time it seems as if this reviewer didn't play/understand what he was playing.
Let's look at some examples,
"Let’s cut to the case of his review:
You have three main resources to manage--metal, radiactives[sic], and turinium.
There are four resources: Metal, radioactives, Turinium and Quanta. Quanta being the most important one.
The first two are for constructing ships, but if you collect enough turinium you win the game. Because turinium is necessary for victory, Ashes of the Singularity encourages hapless and aggressive rushing.
By that argument, Company of Heroes is about hapless, aggressive rushing. Which is, of course, nonsense. In practice, the player that does hapless, aggressive rushing would be crushed by the player who spends quanta, the resource you apparently weren’t aware of, to insert forces behind your lines.
Your starting area will only have a couple resource nodes, and you can't stockpile resources as you can in most other strategy games.
What?! Yes you can. Not only do you store resources but you can research tech to increase your storage.
So, playing cautiously isn't an option. You have to expand--and fast.
Which, again, is factually wrong.
Ashes of the Singularity doesn't have these flourishes; what you see is what you get.
Except clearly, you didn’t see the primary player resource: Quanta. The resource so important that it’s literally displayed inside your player box next to your avatar and necessary to use any of the player abilities that would be required to win the game above easy.
Maps are consistently dry and lack character. With the exception of modest changes in elevation, there aren't many features that lend themselves to strategic use.
Er what are you talking about? There are hills, mountains, plateaus, ravines, etc. And if that is insufficient then you have to hold that doubly true against Supreme Commander.
There are no towering mountains to hide your forces during an ambush,
What are you talking about? There are, literally, towering mountains to hide your forces. Because the game has true line of sight (as in, a mountain blocks the view of what’s behind it), it is a common player tactic to hide their forces behind towering mountains in order to ambush the enemy. The AI actually is programmed to do just that."
What the hell is Gamespot doing? They are tarnishing what image they have left by giving reviews to freelance "writers" that don't know how to play video games.
Wow dude, you pretty much exposed Gamespot's bullshit in 1 post.
Wtf, this looks like a joke, if starcraft is too complex for him, maybe he should just stick to call of duty.
@the_master_race said:
@Zlurodirom said:
Lol this is the same guy who reviewed SCII:LoTV and complained it was too complex (this was after he claimed he played 50 hours of it I believe). Also gave LoTV an 8 with the only bullet point negative as complex gameplay (from an RTS? What did you expect?). He also mentioned poor dialogue, but really I don't think that's a 2 point loss, as most video games are probably just as bad. Also the LoTV reivew was really short too, and no video review.
I think he's just not great at RTS games and just got overwhelmed by this game and didn't give it a chance. Why GameSpot is outsourcing RTS games to someone who finds SC too complex is beyond me.
SOB , ಠ__ಠ..... now it makes me wonder how he's gonna handle total war: warhammer
game reviews are a joke these days.. I personally blame scoring systems.. take away a numerical score and force people to actually read the content of reviews in order to determine whether a game is "good" or not would go a loooooong way towards solving this problem.. In this particular case, instead of someone just looking at a 4/10 and saying "oh, that game must suck" and the developer losing a potential sale, that person would have actually read the review and saw that the reviewer didn't have a clue about the game and then could have dismissed this "review" as the garbage it apparently is..
The current scoring system used in gaming "journalism" only serves to fuel the fanboy wars that provides them with the most clicks.. All the while, the people who create content for our favorite hobby are potentially wasting time and resources for several years just for some reviewer to spend 2 hours with their game and slap a 5/10 on it just to get clicks.. It's truly sad and it's hurting the industry..
game reviews are a joke these days.. I personally blame scoring systems.. take away a numerical score and force people to actually read the content of reviews in order to determine whether a game is "good" or not would go a loooooong way towards solving this problem.. In this particular case, instead of someone just looking at a 4/10 and saying "oh, that game must suck" and the developer losing a potential sale, that person would have actually read the review and saw that the reviewer didn't have a clue about the game and then could have dismissed this "review" as the garbage it apparently is..
The current scoring system used in gaming "journalism" only serves to fuel the fanboy wars that provides them with the most clicks.. All the while, the people who create content for our favorite hobby are potentially wasting time and resources for several years just for some reviewer to spend 2 hours with their game and slap a 5/10 on it just to get clicks.. It's truly sad and it's hurting the industry..
The worst part is how developers base employee performance on review scores. This wouldn't be a problem if the reviews were accurate representation of the game. Opinions are one thing, but being factually wrong on a dozen different aspects of the game being reviewed is another. It's almost as if Daniel Starkey just rushed a review out in order to get paid. This is misrepresenting the game being reviewed and making Gamespot look bad. Gamespot should not employee Daniel Starkey's services in the future.
I have played the game and I think it is flippin' amazing. So far about 50 hours of playtime.
First thing I will say about these reviews is to stop comparing this to another game.....It is not that game nor is it a sequel to the game so stop comparing it and review the game on its own merits. The game is pretty hard but I will say that they could have put difficulty levels in the original release......However, they released an update 3-4 days ago that contains many new maps AND of course they included 5 difficulty settings!
I also do not see how anyone thinks this game is unfinished....Only thing I can think of is they all read the same review that says it seemed incomplete.....Give me a break!! Just because the menu screen has wire mesh textures maybe people think that??? Huh, I do not know. But I do know that I just LOVE this game!!! I have not played this game people are comparing this to though....It is called "Star Commander 2"????? Please correct me if I am wrong.
they need to have 2 people review games and make sure they are people who are really into the type of game they are playing. I'd like to see all gamespot reviews do this, have two people play the game, and write side by side reviews on them and talk about the game to each other in the review and what they both liked or disliked.
Devs buying reviews is a major problem. Glad GS had some integrity for once.
More like devs didn't pay them, which might have pissed gs off. But honestly gs doesn't know how to review strategy games properly.
Dont be silly. Plenty of games on this forum get good reviews from similar sized studios, or ones even smaller. There has been criticisms leveraged at this game from other publications that seem to reflect some of the complaints here.
The freelance reviewer in question has reviewed strategy games before. He has also freelanced for one of PC gaming's biggest publications, Rock, Paper, Shotgun, recently published a "Wot I Think" of Battlefleet Gothic: Armada. Not sure how the process works over there, but RPS have been really good with Strategy game critique, Adam Smith is probaby one of the better Strategy game critics around.
The reviewer just seems to have genuinely messed this one up for whatever reason and the editing staff just slipped this through and published it; I'd imagine they didnt play the game. I can understand if the game has a shit tutorial and knowing Stardock from the several games I played from them, it's understandable if the game completely dropped the ball in communicating its mechanics and is what should have been criticized. But there's just so many blatantly obvious things players are pointing out and cross-referencing that just seems like the reviewer didnt give this one all that fair of a review.
@illmatic87: the actual fucked up part is that the review is still there. You'd think the staff would have done something about this by now. Guess they're too busy making videos debating what color underwear Ironman wears in the new avengers movie or who banged who this week on game of thrones. You know, stuff relevant to games.
Haven't palyed the game but it def sounds like the reviewer screwed up big time. Think it's good that a dev hit back like this when there are so many factual errors (missunderstandings of mechanics) that clearly affects the enjoyment of the game. Hopefully GS apologize and take down the review.
Lol! Video Game Journalist are not held to any sort of standard. They will just come out and talk about how toxic the community is.
Ok I was wrong, you were right. Turned out they had no standards lol.
This is why I love the Steam player review system! If a game has 200+ reviews, the percentage of positive reviews is a great and reliable indicator of game quality. BUT only at 200+ reviews!!
Ashes of the Singularity has 959 reviews right now, 73% positive. Not bad.
@mems_1224 said:
@illmatic87: the actual fucked up part is that the review is still there. You'd think the staff would have done something about this by now. Guess they're too busy making videos debating what color underwear Ironman wears in the new avengers movie or who banged who this week on game of thrones. You know, stuff relevant to games.
Apparently, the reviewer had a personal beef with the game developer. As a result the Stardock CEO emailed Gamespot at the beginning of the month asking for them to let someone else review the game because of conflict of interest. I guess Gamespot decided not to give a ****. It is disappointing. This is something that shouldn't have happened. I think it was a reasonable request to assign the game to a different reviewer. What Gamespot has done here seems unethical to me. A shame really.
Log in to comment