PC Gamer

Post by **BattleGoat** » Jul 18 2005

Well, we've had reviews before that have caused controversy on this
Forum, but I hope this one unites all of our forum members --- AGAINST
the review that is. PC Gamer have reviewed our game for the
September issue that should be on newstands by next week. Their
rating... 34%!

The reviewer (Stephen Poole) criticizes how boring the tutorial is, but
we've already admitted that. Otherwise he really doesn't say anything
about the game except how much he didn't like it. His sub-heading for
the review... "It's got everything but the kitchen sink - though the
devs let gameplay go down the drain". Other comments that particularly
emphasize his lack of understanding for our game...

"Four years in the making, this empire-builder from newcomer BattleGoat
Studios may well be the densest, most inscrutable, and ultimately
off-putting game I've ever had the misfortune of playing.... eventually
I did discover its silver lining: it encouraged me to drag out my
thesaurus and dig up as many adjectives as I could for 'boring',
'monotonous', and 'impenetrable'."

"Too bad it's all been buried in an interface that makes you plow
through as many screens of information and data as possible to perform
even rudimentary tasks."

"the gameplay is as compelling as sifting through a stack of office
memos"

"and topping it all off is the fact that taking tactical control of your
military units is just as irritating and confounding as your govermental
chores."

"My hat is off to BattleGoat for managing to include so much stuff in a
single game, but maybe they should consider spending another four years
finding a way to make the game accessible to someone other than the
beta-testers."

Personally I'm quite happy with our User Interface. Considering how
deep our game is, I think the interface makes all the facets of the game
easily accessible. It's hard to argue other facts of the review, since
(even with a full page review) he didn't really put any other facts in.

Anyways... he spent pretty much the entire review saying how much he
hated the game. Maybe next time his editor will assign him something a
little more geared for his tastes... like "Deer Hunter 10"

. If
you're a PC Gamer subscriber and get the chance to see and read
the review in full, please feel free to let the editors of PC
Gamer know your reaction to the review personally (Email :
letters@pcgamer.com )

Andre_Trbojevic · Post by **Andre_Trbojevic** » Jul 18 2005

....THIS IS OBSURED!!!

Then again you would expect it from someone who thinks FPS games are all perfect and has a mind capacity of a broodway-blonde. I bet the guy doesn't even know how to play a Strategy game, let alone be able to enjoy the challenges and experience in them- especially in such a unique, well-rounded and large variety game!!

**Edit after I showed all of my friends who have the game ( 42 people on my MSN ) They will be getting a LARGE amount of letters but not the ones with flowers and heart-chocolates.

***EDIT, Beta testers can only play this? I got a hold of this game after 2 hours and Im not close to being a strategical or technology genius -_- I think one of my comments from Para. 1 is well supported now.

I have grown to enjoy this game, and after looking at TONS of Magazine and Online reviews, this one is just.. insulting

Post by **George Geczy** » Jul 19 2005

It is also rather typical of the review that the screenshot was labelled as "Paris" but is in fact a screen from the China scenario

-- George.

3iff · Post by **3iff** » Jul 19 2005

PC Gamer apparently gave the original version of Superpower a 42%.

Now that demo was unplayable. SR2010 is far superior to that and can only get 34%??

Obviously written by someone who can't even spell strategy! Seems like if it's not a FPS then it's too complicated to bother about...Reviewers? Pah!

Andre_Trbojevic · Post by **Andre_Trbojevic** » Jul 19 2005

Its humerous how you intentionally mispelled Supreme Ruler person above my post with Superpower....

Quoting Stewy from family guy: "I think im going to kill you tonight"

EDIT: The website says its the... BEST.. game magazine out there. Im scared!

CptBritish · Post by **CptBritish** » Jul 19 2005

I used to have respect for PC gamer ....

Consider it revoked

klaz28 · Post by **klaz28** » Jul 19 2005

hmmm.... the problem with this game is that before you can really write a review you need to play a few campaigns/scenarios.

The learning curve is quite steep especially if you haven't really played these sort of games before. I'm used to games like cossacks, imperial glory, alpha centauri etc.

Now don't get me wrong. I love this game. In fact I've been spending too much time on the computer simply because this game is so addictive, but I needed to crawl through these forums looking for information about the economy before the game got really fun (well it was fun from the start to launch a massive attack, and then get beaten on all sides)

Its such a deep game, I'd suggest including guidelines to any reviewer in setting up an economy at the start with an explanation of the basic functions (inflation, deflation, demand etc). I'm 28, and many of the information contained within the game, while I was aware of it, I truely didn't know how they worked. (in some aspects only economists or those with direct interest in economics would understand).

Lovely game. One of my Favourites. But I can see why it got a low score especially if the review thought he'd be able to get a successful economy on the first game after 1 hour of gameplay.

Legend · Post by **Legend** » Jul 19 2005

Has anyone been to metacritic.com?
It's a site that lists reviews with their scores... then it displays an average score.

There are currently 5 reviews listed with an average score of 76%
http://www.metacritic.com/games/platfor ... eruler2010
See for yourself.

The are three reviews that are not part of the metacritic.com list:
Game Vortex
http://www.gamevortex.com/gamevortex/soft_rev.php/2627 --- 76%
WHAM! Gaming
http://wham.canoe.ca/pc/2005/07/18/1136935.html --- 85%
...and... drum roll please...
PC Gamer - as mentioned here.

hmmm... this seems like the start of a good letter to send to PC [ahem] Gamer...

Legend · Post by **Legend** » Jul 19 2005

Oh and one other thought... why would someone who is writing a review need to pull our their thesaurus? Aren't they a professional writer by now? And if they did need to do so why would they take the time to tell us that during a review? I wonder why he didn't tell us what spell checker he used too?

tboy21 · Post by **tboy21** » Jul 19 2005

The spell-checker always CTDs to him (you know 10 y.o. boys still have problems with writing).

ainsworth74 · Post by **ainsworth74** » Jul 19 2005

before we all start a hate club with PCGamer I thought I might point out that it was the US version that gives you 34% the UK (and better) version gives you 67% which is an improvment, on the whole it only critises you for the AI, the diplomacy and the ministers not being very good. But it does say you had some inspired design decisions. But they tell us all to stick to Paradox until you solve the problems.

Post by **Balthagor** » Jul 19 2005

PC Gamer UK Reviewed us?!?...

Which issue please!

BigStone · Post by **BigStone** » Jul 19 2005

"I've ever had the misfortune of playing....

Just wondering what the wanker played before... probably with his dolls...

Cheers

ozmono2005 · Post by **ozmono2005** » Jul 19 2005

Not much new to add here except that the GAME IS GREAT, it's more complex than most games but considering how much more complex it is it is very user friendly. Unbelievable array of variety and replayability.

The reviewer is just a F~&#en prick!!!!

I think he complains about the lack of a interactive tutorial because he is incapable of figuring anything out himself and can't read the book!!!

WHEN ARE REVIEWERS GOING TO REPRESENT THE AUDIENCE THE GAME WAS MEANT FOR AND NOT JUST THE LEGIONS OF BUTTON BASHERS?????

I hope you devs don't take this BS seriously. I think the game is great and it seems that most people agree.

powercell · Post by **powercell** » Jul 20 2005

I don't know how much time the reviewer spent on this game, and I don't know if the reviewer ever consider coming to this forum to see how other people play the game.

For me, the first couple of hours playing the demo, I have no clue of how this game works. Part of it is beacuse of my bad habit of never read the game manual before I play. Lucky for me that I DLed this game on Friday and I had the whole weekend off to play around with the game. I also joined the forum and read the game document to find what I need to understand the game's machanic. It took me 2 full weeks (almost 48 hours of one weekend and average 3 hours a day) to have some understanding of the game and see its full potential. I am glad that I spent the money on SR2010 instead of some other "typical" RTS and seeing BG spending the money on improving the game.

By the way, I trust the users' review on the web much more than the review from magazines. Hundreds of hardcore and casual gamers vs one (or may be two) reviewer for each magazines.

PC Gamer

PC Gamer

Re: PC Gamer