Reviewing this game

[Mysh]

So far I noticed King Arthur II averaging 4.2 on GameSpot, which is at least unfair for the quality of the title.

I have a feeling some may deliberately try to underrate King Arthur II, which would be unfortunate. If you share this view with me, please try to add some positive feedback.

In my mere opinion it is the community's responsibility to put things right. Hence, I have written strongly favouring critics in both metacritic and gamespot today.

http://www.gamespot.com/king-arthur-ii-the-role-playing-wargame/user-reviews/platform/pc/
http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/king-arthur-ii-the-role-playing-wargame

Thanks

 

[DrakenLord]

If you want to help, post an accurate review with an accurate mark.

You don't solve something by being part of the problem. If you start posting overly positive reviews, others will feel obliged to post overly negative reviews to compensate. It goes both ways. The only way we can end this is post accurate reviews, and those reviews will get support (as in people will mark it as useful) thus more people will see them and hopefully the exagerated reviews will get 1) buried and 2) ignored since well it is obvious that a review giving perfect 10 or or 1-2-3 are just spam.

 

[Mysh]

Thanks for your answer.

I actually did not suggest to overrate this title, but to post what you think about it. It's obvious that it worths a lot more than 4.2 in my eyes.

If you want to help, post an accurate review with an accurate mark.

Agree with you.

You don't solve something by being part of the problem. If you start posting overly positive reviews, others will feel obliged to post overly negative reviews to compensate. It goes both ways. The only way we can end this is post accurate reviews...

Yes, agree with your point.

2) ignored since well it is obvious that a review giving perfect 10 or or 1-2-3 are just spam.

A review should reflect the reviewer's honest opinion. So, 10, or 1-2-3 are not spam by the definition so long the reviewer believes it.

 

[Bertouch]

I can't speak for anybody else, but personally, I wouldn't worry about the non-critical opinions expressed on Metacritic or game sites. Very few people enjoy this kind of title, and those that do often tend to prefer their favorites, such as the Total Wars series. And they'll diss anything else. Nobody who reads what they write with any reasonable intelligence is going to buy into their comments. I'd sooner take notice a good, in-depth, thoughtful player mini-review, then some jackass who posts "King Arthur II SUXS!!!!?!"

 

[DrakenLord]

You agree with me, but you posted a perfect 10 on both review sites. This game obviously doesn't deserve a 10, if for the technical problems alone, so you are just misleading people.

There are also NO negative reviews on those sites, so there was not even a need to compensate for low marks. In fact people might start voting the game down just to compensate for your perfect 10.

I'll write my short review soon, but I will probably give the game around 7.5/10.

 

[unmerged(412239)]

That is about what it is... If only they just improved what they already had, they would have had a an actual improvement instead of side grade. If they did not remove many of the key features from KAI this game would be a 9/10 instead of a 7-8/10:wacko:

 

[DrakenLord]

That is about what it is... If only they just improved what they already had, they would have had a an actual improvement instead of side grade. If they did not remove many of the key features from KAI this game would be a 9/10 instead of a 7-8/10:wacko:

Agreed. I would easily give the game a 9/10 if it didn't lose depth and had less to no serious technical problems.

 

[unmerged(152709)]

Overall the game is quite polished, but has some minor bugs

This is simply not true, the game is far from polished and I wouldn't call bugs like teleporters not working or the tutorial text floating out of the screen and freezing the game "minor". I bought KA1 a year after it's release and liked it, so I thought I support the devs this time and buy KA2 right away. Unfortunately, the game wouldn't have suffered from a later release date and a few more weeks in QA. Pushing patches on release day(?) and introducing even more bugs (no mouse cursor) wasn't the best move either.

 

[Clegane76]

This game obviously doesn't deserve a 10, if for the technical problems alone, so you are just misleading people.

I realize that you weren't speaking to me here, but I also reviewed the game very highly. I wanted to point out that I only provided the review from my perspective and in my personal experience the game wasn't technically flawed. Other than the teleport bug (which has already been addressed by Neocore and will be fixed in the first update), the game was technically flawless for me. Everything runs smoothly, there are no glitches or hangups, and I get a very nice frame rate both on the campaign map and in the battles with most graphical settings maxed. If other people have technical or performance issues then they can deal with that and assign whatever value to it that they wish in their reviews. But I stated quite clearly in my review on Gamespot that the game was pretty much flawless for me in terms of performance.

So if you feel the game doesn't warrant a 10, then review it accordingly, which I see you have done. But please do not tell others (in this case either me or Myshkin) that we erred in giving the game high marks. In my experience at least, I have yet to see a single one of the performance flaws that some others have complained about. Reviews are entirely subjective and I truly fail to see how sharing my opinion and experience of the game is misleading to anyone.

 

[unmerged(89305)]

Well, the only time I visit the Paradox forums lately is to find out why my game isn't working. In this case I got the teleporter bug and can't progress.

The great thing about Metacritic is it gives a good picture of the average. The dumb people who give it a 10 or a 1 just get ignored. How anyone can give a game a score of 10 when you cant even finish it due to bugs is beyond me

 

[Sandermatt]

I would give this game a 9/10, the difference to 10 because of the bugs and performance issues. It is true that they removed features from KA1, but the diplomacy for example added a lot of dept again and some things seem to work better here, like unit balance and skill balance.

 

[Mysh]

You agree with me, but you posted a perfect 10 on both review sites. This game obviously doesn't deserve a 10, if for the technical problems alone, so you are just misleading people.

We can only agree we disagree then.

So if you feel the game doesn't warrant a 10, then review it accordingly, which I see you have done. But please do not tell others (in this case either me or Myshkin) that we erred in giving the game high marks. In my experience at least, I have yet to see a single one of the performance flaws that some others have complained about. Reviews are entirely subjective and I truly fail to see how sharing my opinion and experience of the game is misleading to anyone.

Thank you. Well said. :ninja:

 

[Clegane76]

The dumb people who give it a 10 or a 1 just get ignored. How anyone can give a game a score of 10 when you cant even finish it due to bugs is beyond me

Well, firstly I'll thank you not to refer to me as 'dumb' because you disagree with my review. Disagree all you want, but insulting my intelligence because my opinion disagrees with yours doesn't particularly paint you in a very reputable light.

Secondly, because since purchasing my first computer game (Wizardry V for the Commodore 64 in 1988), I have yet to play a single one that didn't have at least ONE bug or minor performance issue right out of the box. Not one, however vaunted. From SSI's Gold Boxes to Sierra's adventure masterpieces on through the rise of Black Isle and and the fall of Sir-Tech and Interplay. Up into today with the Total War games, Bioware, Bethesda, Paradox, and any other publisher I can think of. In fact, Fallout 2, one of the most critically acclaimed, legendary, and highly-regarded RPGs since the genre was founded, was released in a completely unwinnable state. And when they finally patched it weeks later, the patch completely ruined everyone's save games without any warning whatsoever. And that game still gets '10s' all over the place even today.

The perfect game does not exist. It never has. It likely never will. How you, as a reviewer, regard the '10' score is entirely up to you. If you choose to regard it as some sort of Saint Graal that truly represents the 'perfect game' and can never actually be awarded, then that is your prerogative. Personally, I feel it is ridiculous to have a numeric reviewing scale when one end of that scale is fundamentally unattainable. This game runs almost flawlessly for me from a technical standpoint. I have the fullest faith that the 'teleport bug' (the only problem I've ever encountered) will be resolved, probably within the week. If it sits unfixed, I may go and edit my review, but for now the score I gave the game represents my satisfaction with the concept, graphics, story, music, gameplay, technical performance, reviewer bias, and general 'fun factor' that cannot necessarily be qualified in text. And I stand by it resolutely. It is the combination of these factors that prompt me to rate the game as I did, which was a 10. Meaning that it is probably the best game I have played in the past year and I've barely even scratched its longterm surface.

 

[Blxz]

You are sort of contradicting yourself here....? You say that you rated a 10 and thats not dumb but then you say no game can be a 10.

People rating "the best game I have played in the past year" (which, I might add, has only been 4 weeks) as a 10 are what is ruining the point system. By not doing that and instead doing somehting a little more realistic like, I dunno actually removing points for where it isn't perfect, leads to a more usable system. A good game should be 5/6. An awesome game should be 7/8. A best game 'EVAR' should be like a 9. The 10 should not exist until they get true, 100% Virtual Reality porn.

 

[Clegane76]

You are sort of contradicting yourself here....? You say that you rated a 10 and thats not dumb but then you say no game can be a 10.

People rating "the best game I have played in the past year" (which, I might add, has only been 4 weeks) as a 10 are what is ruining the point system. By not doing that and instead doing somehting a little more realistic like, I dunno actually removing points for where it isn't perfect, leads to a more usable system. A good game should be 5/6. An awesome game should be 7/8. A best game 'EVAR' should be like a 9. The 10 should not exist until they get true, 100% Virtual Reality porn.

No, in this context 'the past year' for me meant the past 12 months. And you clearly misunderstood my main point, as well. I never said nor even implied that 'no game could be a 10.' Not sure how you interpreted that from my post. My point was that every '10' ever given in history was for a flawed and imperfect game. For me, a 10 does not equal perfection because there IS no perfection in this industry.

But that doesn't mean one should not award a 10 to a game that they feel warrants that numerical score. Obviously you feel differently and we have a fundamental, unchangeable difference in how we view and interpret the numeric reviewing process.

 

[DrakenLord]

No, in this context 'the past year' for me meant the past 12 months. And you clearly misunderstood my main point, as well. I never said nor even implied that 'no game could be a 10.' Not sure how you interpreted that from my post. My point was that every '10' ever given in history was for a flawed and imperfect game. For me, a 10 does not equal perfection because there IS no perfection in this industry.

But that doesn't mean one should not award a 10 to a game that they feel warrants that numerical score. Obviously you feel differently and we have a fundamental, unchangeable difference in how we view and interpret the numeric reviewing process.

No, what is going on here is we have a rational person vs an irrational person. One rates the game on its merits and flaws in a logical manner, and another who just sees things in black and white and either fully like, or fully dislike things. A point system does not work for the irrational person, since you don't think past the "thumbs up" or "thumbs down" step... You just think emotionally that is all.

This also explains why you are oblivious to the game bugs. Sure performance issues vary from machine to machine, and it is possible that the game runs great for you. However quest and campaign bugs are universal and everyone is subject to them, the fact that you don't see them (or at least insist on saying you don't) further proves my point. You just decided to love the game, and as the saying goes love is blind. (Because it is emotional and thus irrational in nature.)

 

[Clegane76]

This also explains why you are oblivious to the game bugs. Sure performance issues vary from machine to machine, and it is possible that the game runs great for you. However quest and campaign bugs are universal and everyone is subject to them, the fact that you don't see them (or at least insist on saying you don't) further proves my point. You just decided to love the game, and as the saying goes love is blind. (Because it is emotional and thus irrational in nature.)

Or perhaps the 'quest and campaign bugs' that chap your ass so severely are just inconsequential to me because they don't actually matter. Like all of the bugs in KA1, they'll eventually get patched up and no one except the pettiest of nitpicking reviewers will ever even know they existed. They are not in any way impacting my enjoyment of the game (aside from the teleport bug, which I already mentioned in my above post) and I do not see any point in wasting my time or energy harping in a review about meaningless, insignificant shit that is going to be fixed and utterly non-existent by the time most future readers will ever read what I post.

I purchase and play games for the purpose of enjoying them. Not to nitpick and piss and moan and cry about every...single...tiny...little...thing that isn't absolutely perfect. I rate things with more rationality than many here in that I do not overreact and allow a few minor irritations to completely cloud my opinion of an otherwise brilliant game. Two years from now, when the only tangible evidence of most of these 'bugs and performance flaws' will be a bunch of archived, dusty posts and your cranky-ass reviews...what will it all really matter? Unless the bugs/performance issues are so severe that I cannot even play the game long or effectively enough to review it, then there's no point in addressing them with anything other than a casual mention. They'll be phased out long before everyone but the pre-order and flavor-of-the-month club buyers even know the game exists.

 

[DrakenLord]

Or perhaps the 'quest and campaign bugs' that chap your ass so severely are just inconsequential to me because they don't actually matter.

Some of these bugs are progression stopping, just do some reading on these forums and you will find them. I encountered one myself and i am barely finishing chapter 2, and i can cite at least 3 other game stopping bugs reported by others.

Not to nitpick and piss and moan and cry about every...single...tiny...little...thing that isn't absolutely perfect.

lmao. Since you resort to calling others moaning crybabies, lets take 30 seconds to talk of you. Do you know what projection is? Projection in psychology is a defense mechanism that makes a person see his own faults in others. A greedy man will tend to perceive others as greedy, a kind man will perceive others as kind, and so on. In your case you'r emotional and like to pretend you'r rational and others are crybabies. Where others argue and use logic and simple facts (as in "i experienced this problem"), you seem to fall back to denial and emotional responses. Just look at your posts, read them again and see the terminology, the words you use. It is so obvious i don't know how you can miss it. It seems you can't just say "this game is flawed but i love it", if you like it you seem obliged to find it perfect in every way. Why do you feel the need to jump hoops and defend the game all over the place like it was the honor of some damsel in distress? I will say it again, you can love a game (or anything in this world) and still recognize its faults, there is nothing wrong with that.

I do not see any point in wasting my time or energy harping in a review about meaningless, insignificant shit that is going to be fixed and utterly non-existent by the time most future readers will ever read what I post.

I find it funny how you can't face the present, which is a buggy game you can't deny the faults of anymore, so you choose to argue in a future tense where all the bugs have been fixed. I am sorry but :

1) We bought the game now, we are playing it now and reviewing it now, thus the review has to reflect the present state of the game.
2) King Arthur 1 still has the same bad performance for players who had this problem 2-3 years afters its original release, and it still has bugs. Just 2 weeks ago a bug with the tutorial getting stuck was finally able to be reproduced and hopefully fixed soon. You can't presume to know the future and can't state for a fact that all bugs will be fixed. It depends on many factors, how efficiently the players will report the bugs in a reproducible manner, how much ressources the developers/publishers will dedicate to fixing bugs after the game release, and how much time they will spend fixing this game before they decide that it is "good enough" (remember the 24FPS is good enough argument?) before working on another project. Declaring that all bugs are temporary and will disappear at the wave of a magic wand is just supposition and wishful thinking.

Don't get me wrong. I bought both games and play them both and I don't regret my decision. But reviews are mainly for other people to make a buying decision on a purchase, not a place to state how your opinion is a magic place where pigs can fly and every kid rides to school on a chocolate unicorn pet. A review has to be rational and logical and stick to hard cold facts. Future buyers deserve to make an informed decision, and denial such as the one you practice is counter productive, and frankly dishonest.

 

[Clegane76]

Some of these bugs are progression stopping, just do some reading on these forums and you will find them. I encountered one myself and i am barely finishing chapter 2, and i can cite at least 3 other game stopping bugs reported by others.

But see, I have not encountered these progression-stopping bugs (teleport in the Prologue aside). So I will not allow them to influence my review. If I do encounter them and they keep me from playing the game and they are not rectified in a timely fashion, then I will go back in and modify my review score to reflect that.I'm not harping on you or anyone else for the way you've chosen to review the game on a website. Or at least I wasn't until you felt the need to start complaining about other peoples' reviews. I didn't tell you your 7.5 was inaccurate or flawed in any way. It is your experience, your opinion, and your interpretation of how best to utilize a 1-10 numerical reviewing scale. I explained, clearly and unequivocally what my rationale was for reviewing it the way I did.

1. Performance on my machine is awesome.
2. The bugs I have PERSONALLY encountered have been insignificant, minor, and not gamebreaking in any way.
3. I have warmed to Neocore's design decisions that I was initially skeptical about (the kingdom management for example)
4. The game is immensely entertaining and has held my interest remarkably well, with great future potential.

See, "A bunch of people on internet forums harp and complain about problems that I personally do not encounter" is not a criteria I use when writing a review. I mentioned the performance issues as a courtesy to readers, so they could be aware of their perceived existence and go do their own research, but I also stated that I had never experienced them in any way.

You reviewed the game more poorly than I did for one reason:
Your whole experience was worse than mine.

You had performance issues, the bugs bothered you more than they bothered me, you didn't like many design decisions, whatever the case. You wrote a review based on the 'simple facts' of your experience.
The 'simple facts' of my experience were, quite simply, different from yours. I wonder how things would be if it weren't.

For example, if you played the game with the 50-60 FPS that I get, if none of the bugs actually interfered detrimentally with your playing experience, and if you saw and appreciated the reason for the design changes. What then would your review be? You gave it a 7.5 with bad performance, game breaking bugs, and a dislike for design choices.
Wouldn't it stand to reason that if none of those things existed for you (as they, in point of FACT, do not for me) you'd bump your review by at least 2 points, if not 2.5?

You also seem to be horribly confused about what exactly a 'review' is. You claim that a review 'has to be rational and logical and stick to cold hard facts.' You do realize, right, that reviews are ENTIRELY subjective and (more often than when used for gaming) the term refers to a critical assessment of a play, a movie, or a musical release? How exactly do you convey the 'cold, hard facts' of why Blonde on Blonde is a better album than Blood on the Tracks ? It isn't even possible.

I think much of your inability to grasp why Mysh and i gave the reviews we did is because you don't actually understand what a 'review' is and why they exist.

 

[Archonsod]

A point system does not work for the irrational person

A points system doesn't work at all. Rather hard to quantify subjective enjoyment via the medium of mathematics.