review from Rock Paper Shotgun

[ash001]

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/10/12/wot-i-think-sengoku/#more-77640

So what do you guys think?

I haven't been able to sink into the game, having just played the demo - but so far I do agree with this:


"Some of this may be due to the interface, which at first simply seemed streamlined compared to Europa Universalis but soon made me realise that I was missing out on possibilities because I hadn’t figured out how to do certain things yet."

 

[unmerged(94472)]

I agree with what the writer says about conquest being easier and more tempting than duplicity, and am also confounded by reviewers who excitedly report that warfare is NOT the best way to win. Still, I think I enjoy the game more than the writer did.

 

[DukeWilleo1630]

Eh. My game hasn't crashed and I have really been enjoying it. Runs smoothly compared to what happens to my eu3 and rome games later in the timeline. It's not a beta. Paradox will tweak and change a lot of the gameplay but that's just to make the game more fun.

 

[unmerged(169164)]

Reads like a rushed review. Telling everything and anything. I am not sure this reviewer check read his article because I suppose he would have noticed the argumentation troubles. Like plotting which is tied to war and nothing else. So it is nothing surprising plotting only leads war and nothing else.

Somehow, reviewers no longer review the game at hand but they review the game they would like to play. Producing poor reviews that do not tell about the game. The state of constant warfare was not unexpected as it might reflect the era. A review should analyze the mechanics under that premice, constant warfare, not writing constant warfare as a surprise.

 

[cobane]

Reads like a rushed review. Telling everything and anything. I am not sure this reviewer check read his article because I suppose he would have noticed the argumentation troubles. Like plotting which is tied to war and nothing else. So it is nothing surprising plotting only leads war and nothing else.

Somehow, reviewers no longer review the game at hand but they review the game they would like to play. Producing poor reviews that do not tell about the game. The state of constant warfare was not unexpected as it might reflect the era. A review should analyze the mechanics under that premice, constant warfare, not writing constant warfare as a surprise.

To be fair, the writer did do a couple of impression write-ups before submitting his final review.

 

[Wampbit]

Having read his impressions and his final review, I don't honestly think he has played much of Sengoku - it sounds to me as if he's still in the initial phase of grasping the AI's tendencies and he admitted he was not adept in the subtle mechanics of Sengoku - something which I'd argue is necessary to discover if you wish to write an informed review. Regardless, I don't disagree with all that he says, specifically the usual point that plotting is not tremendously functional. I also didn't get the feeling that he tried the latest patch - also no talk of multiplayer, which plays very well. On the whole a rather mediocre review, I don't think any of his comment carried tremendous weight.