Empire:Total War Review -Crispy Gamer

[babydoc]

LMAO
The official forums are in "comunist mode"
Everybody are yes- sayers
All no- sayers get a ban

That is what I call a good relationship with a costumer

[Quixote]

LMAO
The official forums are in "comunist mode"
Everybody are yes- sayers
All no- sayers get a ban

That is what I call a good relationship with a costumer

Welcome to the forums...

[Praetorian_BGX]

No he doesn't.
Check out his MGS4 review, he openly admits hating the MGS series and yet seems to think that he is unbiased.
Hell even he gave Uncharted a "buy it now" rating compared to Orange Box's "try it" rating.
If the guy can't tell 5 great games rolled into one compared to a average third-person shooter with a cliche story and characters then he does not know his job.

As for the review, he raises some very good points I felt.
However a "try it" rating would have been more fair.

That's your opinion. I have already said mine. I don't know this guy. Never read anything else he wrote, but in his review i found same problems that forced me to uninstall ETW. I don't care what games he like or not, I'm not interested in his social life or family problems. He wrote damn good review about this game and he was honest. Thats what i respect.

Salute

[Candelarius]

Erm, what kind of game review site has two possible scores? Try it or fry it? Gimme a break.

But, like all review sites, which are either far to positive or far to negative, this site is not at all balanced. Only those who hate the game could say such a thing. The game certainly needs some polish and a solid patch, which should have been built into the game prior to release, but the game is hardly the rubish he is making it out to be.

LMAO
The official forums are in "comunist mode"
Everybody are yes- sayers
All no- sayers get a ban

That is what I call a good relationship with a costumer

Hardly. The official forums are a hot bed of whiners, complainers, and unrealistic demanders, a ring of about 20 people, that do nothing but clog the official site with their rants. I don't blame the moderators, at all, for asking the community to please present constructive, intelligent, balanced feedback. If people cannot express themselves maturely and reasonably, and refuse to heed the warnings they are issued, they should get banned.

[allthesedamnnamesaretaken]

@allthesedamnnamesaretaken: So you believe the quality of a game can be summed up by a subjective quantitative score?

I believe there are different levels of "buy it, try it, and fry it". And I made a thread about it: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=238564

[Dr. Zoidberg]

Erm, what kind of game review site has two possible scores? Try it or fry it? Gimme a break.

But, like all review sites, which are either far to positive or far to negative, this site is not at all balanced. Only those who hate the game could say such a thing. The game certainly needs some polish and a solid patch, which should have been built into the game prior to release, but the game is hardly the rubish he is making it out to be.

First of all, there are 3 different "ratings". Buy It, Try It or Fry It. It is a refreshing change from sites that will throw scores of 9.5's at anything pretty looking, and it is obvious the intention is that you actually read the review to get the reviewer's opinion of the game - seems reasonable, doesn't it?

I think so - especially when this is pretty much the only review that has said anything negative about the game at all. I don't think it is as scathing an attack as some people seem to claim, but merely a reflection of the state the game is currently in. Your attempt at discrediting the site is laughable, since you seem to automatically assign everybody into two categories while crying wolf about the exact same thing.

Yes, clearly everybody who bought this game must absolutely hate it to agree with any of the negative feedback in Tom Chick's review. Infact, I would take that a step further. There is a conspiracy afoot wherein people are only buying the game to hate it with all their heart.

Reviews are opinions. This is probably the most balanced review I have seen for Empire, and I'm not entirely sure why some people seem so hostile to it.

Hardly. The official forums are a hot bed of whiners, complainers, and unrealistic demanders, a ring of about 20 people, that do nothing but clog the official site with their rants. I don't blame the moderators, at all, for asking the community to please present constructive, intelligent, balanced feedback. If people cannot express themselves maturely and reasonably, and refuse to heed the warnings they are issued, they should get banned.

Really? You're defending them?

Allow me to quote a recent post by Shireknight - a forum administrator - regarding the Crispy Gamer review links being deleted from the review thread.

Why did a moderator just delete Trajans post? All he did was post a link to a review and it gets quietly deleted. Only favourable reviews are allowed to be posted in this thread now eh mods? this is getting ridiculous grow up. I've read that review, in four pages it barely says anything about the game at all it is nothing but a fancy rant.

Tell me Bossdave how many serious games reviews have you read where the reviewer has made a statement like this?

"makes me wonder if developer Creative Assembly has contempt for its fan base and utter disregard for everyone else."

It's just something that a proper reviewer would never say -it's not a review it's just a dig at the game and it doesn't belong in this forum.

That is the most hilariously misguided and obviously biased view I can imagine. There is clearly no consideration for allowing any negative review to be within a mile of the review listing, and the feeble attempt at justifying this is only going to exacerbate the issue even more.

[RodeoX]

...It's not about whether you like the criticisms, or not. It's about ones attitude towards problems in general. Reality is VERY often, not what you want it to be, but being an optimist is not the same as being an idiot and denying facts. In this case, that the game has issues. Sitting down just whining, sniveling, moping and in general maintaining a negative attitude, never solved jack .

I really like your 'reality is often not what you want it to be'. Please try and explain this truth to all the 'overly-concerned' people that this goes for...GULP...game releases as well.

We are not in disagreement, whining, sniveling and moping produce nothing.
Just saying I'd rather be armed with facts instead of hope.

[Tassen]

We are not in disagreement, whining, sniveling and moping produce nothing.
Just saying I'd rather be armed with facts instead of hope.

Believe me, the two can coexist...

[Tariq]

Does one really needs detailed score, to understand any review?

If you read any review, you will be able to understand how much game(any game) was checked(played) and if there is something that will encourage you to buy or not to buy.Game scores went down as unreliable gauge long time ago, so 3 score like this is only basic guidance for someone to get possibly interested in review or pass it.

I never buy game because it's scored high or low , but because i found in several reviews and/or demo something that is my cup of tea.

Sometimes i make mistake and buy something without checking first , and it always turns out bad for me ( like in ETW case).It's my fault that i didn't wait for year or two until they made this game decent, then spent $9.99 instead of $49.99, as much is someone else's fault that they spent more money on "greasing" press then game development.However review is spot on with my lackluster experience with this game.

[Quixote]

We are not in disagreement, whining, sniveling and moping produce nothing.
Just saying I'd rather be armed with facts instead of hope.

Whining, sniveling, and moping have been known to produce results. Every baby ever born does this and gets attention from its mother.

[babydoc]

Hardly. The official forums are a hot bed of whiners, complainers, and unrealistic demanders, a ring of about 20 people, that do nothing but clog the official site with their rants. I don't blame the moderators, at all, for asking the community to please present constructive, intelligent, balanced feedback. If people cannot express themselves maturely and reasonably, and refuse to heed the warnings they are issued, they should get banned.

Baning ppl because they are posting a link to a "bad" review in a review thread?
Only allowing the good reviews. Yeah that is the way to go.....

[AnsbachWolf]

Attention can be defined in many different ways. I would not want attention from a heroin addict, were she my mother.

[Tassen]

Whining, sniveling, and moping have been known to produce results. Every baby ever born does this and gets attention from its mother.

As far as babies go (I assume you re talking about infants here) it's not whining, sniveling or moping, even though it can come through like that, but their way of communication since their language skills are somewhat, lacking at that age.

Children on the other hand, are experts in trying this whining, sniveling, moping strategy, but in these cases it is up to the parents to teach them this is not an acceptable behavior.

[Phier]

You guys need to learn how to play the official forums better.

When I discovered the computer can't move troops by sea, did I post 'The AI does not move troops via ship?' no.....

I asked a question as a title 'Has anyone seen the AI invade by sea?'

I knew it didn't invade by sea, but odds are even the mods there didn't know this was an issue. Instead of getting shifted to support or worse rant, the post stayed long enough to show people the AI was having bigger issues than thought at the time.

Its too late now but the way to post this review would have been in say the gamespot review thread where the game got an 85. I would have found some rabid fanboy post who was flaming gamespot and said 'well at least its not as bad as this review' with the link. That would have flown under the radar long enough in context to survive.

[Buffalo-Soldier]

Evens: He played 20 turns on Easy/Easy, then cribbed the rest of the forums.

Yep, that's exactly it. It is rather suspicious that all the complaints he apparently stated from his review copy are the EXACT same complaints echoed by everyone in the official forums and elsewhere.

Gotta give it to him though, it is a rather unimaginative and cheap shot way to get viewers to his/their site. People naturally will applaud his review as the "incorruptible" since they already made up their mind about the game and just feel so much more appreciated in life since they have someone who shares their sentiment. That someone who TOOK their complaints and put it into official words....I mean what's the point now anyhow? Everyone who had an interest in this game already knows about the problems.

I am rather miffed about ETW's state but this review is definitely not much worth in its validity since it's 2 weeks late, it pretty much recycles EVERYTHING from the forums and is just sugar coated with a "professional" look.

Besides, all the pics he posted about the game were all the MARKETING pics we had seen months before. Come on, show us some real pics then that go along your line of thought and texts.

[sgt_melin]

I think this game have its share of bugs as all games have in the relese, but that bad i dont think it is. I love the game and im sure the bigges buggs will get fixed, the small...im not sure they ever will be fixed. There i guess we have to hope for mods, I have this game with small buggs after all the patching and mods that fix some of the small buggs ..then dont have the game at all.

[fingon]

I should have read this review instead of IGN review

The reviewer seems to have played the game long enough to realized that this game is unfinished and was rushed to the market

Page 3 of review : "once again, Creative Assembly has made a game that its AI cannot play." and "It seems that many of the game's features simply aren't used by the AI. Perhaps the most glaring omission is that the AI can't move armies across water, which makes life as the British Empire particularly easy. The AI is incapable of organizing any sort of practical offensive, and will instead just raid towns ineffectually. Enemy armies shuffle around the map noncommittally, apparently unable to seize territory, which is the whole reason armies are in the game."

Very disapointing indeed....

EXACTLY !!!! IGN reviewers havent played it enough long to see the game ruining bugs.. They just wanted to be first to review it and to have a good relations with SEGA, so that they can have some copies for free..

[Buffalo-Soldier]

First of all, there are 3 different "ratings". Buy It, Try It or Fry It. It is a refreshing change from sites that will throw scores of 9.5's at anything pretty looking, and it is obvious the intention is that you actually read the review to get the reviewer's opinion of the game - seems reasonable, doesn't it?

I think so - especially when this is pretty much the only review that has said anything negative about the game at all. I don't think it is as scathing an attack as some people seem to claim, but merely a reflection of the state the game is currently in. Your attempt at discrediting the site is laughable, since you seem to automatically assign everybody into two categories while crying wolf about the exact same thing.

Yes, clearly everybody who bought this game must absolutely hate it to agree with any of the negative feedback in Tom Chick's review. Infact, I would take that a step further. There is a conspiracy afoot wherein people are only buying the game to hate it with all their heart.

Reviews are opinions. This is probably the most balanced review I have seen for Empire, and I'm not entirely sure why some people seem so hostile to it.
Really? You're defending them?

Allow me to quote a recent post by Shireknight - a forum administrator - regarding the Crispy Gamer review links being deleted from the review thread.

That is the most hilariously misguided and obviously biased view I can imagine. There is clearly no consideration for allowing any negative review to be within a mile of the review listing, and the feeble attempt at justifying this is only going to exacerbate the issue even more.

It isn't being hostile towards one justified opinion, but being taken for fools when basically one takes the sentiments already known in the forum and placates them as his own impartial views free of all bias from the forums and other sources of negativity regarding the game.

This is a given that he was biased since he reviewed the game two weeks after release where the hater's and lover's camps of this game are clearly defined. Moreover most of his comments are direct replicas of the complaints within the forums. If he played the game extensively, wouldn't he have found some other problems on his own and shown pictures to show for it?

In any case what makes for a better read? Well that depends who you want to target primarily. He obviously wanted to target the former camp.

[Davincee]

though I dont think he has been suspended because of showing this critisism on ETW that can hurt sale numbers, is do think however that the mods try to maintain good relation with CA and DO crack down on negative comments, may they be whining or factual critisism..

therefore I don't think the mods have clean hands at least at the moment, now that critisism is fresh and new and a lot of people still need to buy the game..

[Dr. Zoidberg]

It isn't being hostile towards one justified opinion, but being taken for fools when basically one takes the sentiments already known in the forum and placates them as his own impartial views free of all bias from the forums and other sources of negativity regarding the game.

This is a given that he was biased since he reviewed the game two weeks after release where the hater's and lover's camps of this game are clearly defined. Moreover most of his comments are direct replicas of the complaints within the forums. If he played the game extensively, wouldn't he have found some other problems on his own and shown pictures to show for it?

In any case what makes for a better read? Well that depends who you want to target primarily. He obviously wanted to target the former camp.

Come on. You don't think he might've encountered the same issues we all have just from, I don't know, playing the game just like we have?

He does not lose credibility for not hyping being the first published review for the greatest, most anticipated game ever!!11. The sort of advertisement and wheeling and dealing that is involved with early reviews of the game make for an infinitely bigger conflict of interest than the one you purport he has (merely being out to grab attention).

I would also argue that even if he has just copied and pasted our complaints, it does not invalidate the review. It allows the very real concerns of the players to be presented in a more accessible format for people who are genuinely interested in the state of the game and whether it's worth purchasing or not.

But I don't believe that is the path he chose. It does him a disservice to even suggest that.

Also, there was a notice posted in the comments for the review stating there will be a "Dissenting Opinion" article written by Troy Goodfellow posted later today. I've read some reviews/articles in that style before and it is one of the most reliable sources for a proper look at a game and any issues it may have. In addition, Tom Chick and Troy Goodfellow are probably among my most respected game reviewers list from previous work. They are not out for the biggest ad revenue like a majority of mainstream gaming media has demonstrated itself to be.