I thought this was an interesting argument to read, and I think DrakenLord is correct in saying that this is two different trains of thought, but I personally wouldn't have used the terms rational and irrational. Going by the argument, I assume he's siding with the "rational" group, even though he's quick to label Clegane76 as not going past the "thumbs up" or "thumbs down" step and undermines his way of judging games.
In my opinion, I would much rather read a review that gives me a sense of the person's playing experience and how much enjoyment they got out of it, as opposed to what can be summed up as a bug report for the game. People who see things in such an objective manner are simply hard to please and make it impossible for developers to rationalize taking risks because those people will go on to bash their product for doing so.
Neocore created a completely new engine for this game, instead of simply spicing up the engine from KAI, and developing for PC means dealing with a crap-ton of different machine configurations, so there's bound to be players that, sadly, don't get the best experience. I doubt they have the budget and manpower to optimize for every possible situation, so they rely on us to let them know of the issue so they can handle it. Unfortunately for them, there are people who will ignore the vision and goal of their game and simply attack its flaws as if that was the intent of their purchase. Rather than rationally assume it's most likely some launch issues and be patient, they jump at the opportunity to review the game while they have the chance to mention the issues King Arthur II is experiencing.
Luckily, the forum-goers and "objective" reviewers possibly represent only a small portion of the gaming community, but it's sad that there are those who will be influenced by the statements of those people instead of making their own decision based on the atmosphere of the game and what the developer was trying to accomplish. I've always thought that the scoring system was an utter failure because it simply exists to quickly advertise a product to the group of people with an attention span not large enough to read (or hear) the thoughts and critiques of fellow gamers. DrakenLord, would you say that King Arthur II has more bugs than Skyrim? Because that game has a ton, game-breaking and all, yet look at its Metacritic score and tell me that those numbers represent the cold, hard facts that you claim reviews should have.
Anyways, I don't want to attack anyone's way of thinking because you usually can't change that mindset and it becomes wasted breath trying to do so. Just wanted to say that I'm glad gamers like Clegane76 still exist to prove that you can simply play for the love of the game. As for the game in question, I've gotten through the Prologue and currently playing through Chapter 1 (haven't had much time to play in-between work and school) and I am a huge fan so far. It's nice to see a video game that taps into the player's imagination through the use of text and choices rather than taking the cinematic route, as is common in games nowadays. The graphics are gorgeous and the battles are a blast to play, the narrative is intriguing and the choices can take some serious thought before clicking, and I'm overall pleased with how successful Neocore was at bringing this world to life.
If I had to nitpick, for some reason the loading time of the main campaign when booting up the map from a save file or after a battle takes much longer than it did with the Prologue. The bar on the bottom is complete yet the game needs another whole minute, which is strange because in the Prologue the map loaded in a flash and the battles required a bit more time. Is it hampering my experience? Not really, no. But if any of the Neocore team is reading this, or maybe someone who also experienced this, do you have any advice on why this may be? Asides from that, everything is smooth sailing.
As for the original topic, don't work yourself up too much over those scores, Myshkin. Just review the game as faithfully as you can and you may just influence people who read it. As for those that don't and decide to pass on it, it's their loss, right? I do hope that the game sells well for Neocore because it deserves it, but as consumers and players we did our part by purchasing it, and even took it a step further by detailing our thoughts on it to those who will listen.
In my opinion, I would much rather read a review that gives me a sense of the person's playing experience and how much enjoyment they got out of it, as opposed to what can be summed up as a bug report for the game. People who see things in such an objective manner are simply hard to please and make it impossible for developers to rationalize taking risks because those people will go on to bash their product for doing so.
Neocore created a completely new engine for this game, instead of simply spicing up the engine from KAI, and developing for PC means dealing with a crap-ton of different machine configurations, so there's bound to be players that, sadly, don't get the best experience. I doubt they have the budget and manpower to optimize for every possible situation, so they rely on us to let them know of the issue so they can handle it. Unfortunately for them, there are people who will ignore the vision and goal of their game and simply attack its flaws as if that was the intent of their purchase. Rather than rationally assume it's most likely some launch issues and be patient, they jump at the opportunity to review the game while they have the chance to mention the issues King Arthur II is experiencing.
Luckily, the forum-goers and "objective" reviewers possibly represent only a small portion of the gaming community, but it's sad that there are those who will be influenced by the statements of those people instead of making their own decision based on the atmosphere of the game and what the developer was trying to accomplish. I've always thought that the scoring system was an utter failure because it simply exists to quickly advertise a product to the group of people with an attention span not large enough to read (or hear) the thoughts and critiques of fellow gamers. DrakenLord, would you say that King Arthur II has more bugs than Skyrim? Because that game has a ton, game-breaking and all, yet look at its Metacritic score and tell me that those numbers represent the cold, hard facts that you claim reviews should have.
Anyways, I don't want to attack anyone's way of thinking because you usually can't change that mindset and it becomes wasted breath trying to do so. Just wanted to say that I'm glad gamers like Clegane76 still exist to prove that you can simply play for the love of the game. As for the game in question, I've gotten through the Prologue and currently playing through Chapter 1 (haven't had much time to play in-between work and school) and I am a huge fan so far. It's nice to see a video game that taps into the player's imagination through the use of text and choices rather than taking the cinematic route, as is common in games nowadays. The graphics are gorgeous and the battles are a blast to play, the narrative is intriguing and the choices can take some serious thought before clicking, and I'm overall pleased with how successful Neocore was at bringing this world to life.
If I had to nitpick, for some reason the loading time of the main campaign when booting up the map from a save file or after a battle takes much longer than it did with the Prologue. The bar on the bottom is complete yet the game needs another whole minute, which is strange because in the Prologue the map loaded in a flash and the battles required a bit more time. Is it hampering my experience? Not really, no. But if any of the Neocore team is reading this, or maybe someone who also experienced this, do you have any advice on why this may be? Asides from that, everything is smooth sailing.
As for the original topic, don't work yourself up too much over those scores, Myshkin. Just review the game as faithfully as you can and you may just influence people who read it. As for those that don't and decide to pass on it, it's their loss, right? I do hope that the game sells well for Neocore because it deserves it, but as consumers and players we did our part by purchasing it, and even took it a step further by detailing our thoughts on it to those who will listen.
