MOO3's free ride with reviewers

from Stardock Forums
So Gamespot gives MOO3 a 6.7. If MOO3 were called 'Space Administrator' it would have gotten a 2. Is it possible or a hyped game to get a low point score on these so called review sites???

Look at Gamespot's review closer:
Graphics: 5. A 5?? It has dots for ships in it for crying out loud. How could the graphics be worse? pre rendered aliens do not make good graphics.

Sound a 7. A 7??? How in the hell can you give it a 7? The annoying beeps and Atari-like explosion sounds are not its strong point.

Value: 7. It's 50 bucks.

Tilt: 8. This is the worst one. Here's a game that even if you get over the '2 hour learning curse' as the reviewer claims, you discover not a game of depth but a game where the only challenge is to lose a game since the AI is so broken.

Why do big hyped games get cut so much slack from some reviewers?
583 views 13 replies
Reply #1 from Stardock Forums Top

Hmm, Actually if you look at gamespot game reviews man. a 6.7 is a pretty horrible game. I very rarely buy a game unless its in the 8.0 + range.
Reply #2 from Stardock Forums Top
I tend to agree with most of Gamespot's reviews in a general sense.

But different reviewers have different tastes. Just because you didn't like MOO3 doesn't mean that the reviewer of MOO3 (Andrew) is somehow tained or something. He simply came to a different assessment.

He doesn't just give out high reviews. For instance, he reamed LightWeight Ninja (http://gamespot.com/gamespot/filters/products/0,11114,530936,00.html).

Reviews reflect the opinions of individual reviewers. That's always going to be a challenge when running any magazine/webzine that reviews products. But again, some people really like MOO 3. And a 6.7 isn't a glowing review either.
ObjectDock - Access shortcuts and frequently used applications from an animated dock.
Reply #3 from Stardock Forums Top
Hmm, my link to LightWeight Ninja didn't work. Anyway, they gave it a 3.9. I personally thought LightWeight ninja was a pretty fun game, especially for 20 bucks. But different reviewers have different tastes.
Reply #4 from Stardock Forums Top
I never decide on a game based on reviews uless it's like a 4 or something, but then again my favorite 4x space game is Ascendancy. I know it's fairly simple but i just love that game. I think the music is the best.
Reply #5 from Stardock Forums Top
Oh come on, how can you be such a MOO3 apologist?

The game was shipped without a working AI. The game isn't fun. Its graphics are right out of the Apple II era and it gets a 6.7. Why? Because it happened to be called Master of Orion. If it were called anything else it would have gotten a 2.

You actually make the point for me. Light Weight Ninja got a 3.9 from the same guy. Stardock is a nobody to them and Light Weight Ninja isn't a popular franchise from a big advertiser.

Face it, MOO3 is getting a free ride.
Reply #6 from Stardock Forums Top
Okay first off, I am not a MOO 3 apologist.

Secondly, I am pointing out that while you and others may not like MOO 3, there are plenty of other people who do. I read the IG forums and there are plenty of people there who are aware of the AI issues who still like the game. Andrew mentions the issues that concern you in his review. He made a judgement call.

Of course I wasn't happy that LightWeight Ninja got a 3.9. I wasn't involved on that project but I played it enough to know that it was a pretty decent little game. But writing posts complaining about that is pointless. Because for one, I don't think there's any conspiracy going on. I know these guys, they're NOT corrupt if that's what you're implying. I honestly believe that even if I was critical of them it would not make any difference either way to how they review our games. In other words, I do believe Gamespot is an honest broker.

As I tried to explain, different reviewers have different tastes. For example, for you you've given up on MOO 3 apparently. But other people believe that the problems in the game they've experienced can be addressed with a patch. Perhaps Andrew felt the same way, that while there are issues in the game, they are fixable in future updates. A lot of people have said as much.

In LightWeight Ninja's case, perhaps he felt that the game itself didn't suffer from flaws due to lack of development but rather flaws in basic design and gameplay that could't be addressed with updates and graded accordingly.

The point is, we don't know. I just don't like it when people immediately assume that the reason some game they did't like got a high review is due to corruption, as if these guys are getting paid off by the new world order.

And no, I'm not toadying up to Gamespot. Like I said, I believe they're an honest broker. I could say reviewer X,Y,Z there is a demonized troglite or whatever and it wouldn't affect our review one way (similarly, saying nice things won't affect). They review things based on their perceived merits TO THEM and rate based on that. That's all you can hope for. So sure, I'm still peeved that LightWeight Ninja got such a low review from the same reviewer but I don't think it was due to malice or corruption, he simply didn't like it.

Phew. That come across clearly enough?
Reply #7 from Stardock Forums Top
Just a small correction, MOO3 and LWNinja had different reviewers. So Hamster as you can see, it really does boil down to different people having different opinions.

BTW, I've gotten a couple email from people who have implied that the reason I've stuck up for MOO 3 is because Infogrames is distributing both.

I've been very careful not to comment for or against MOO 3 because it would be inappropriate. But for the record, we have no direct financial relationship with Infogrames. I just don't think it's professional for game developers to publicly comment on similar games so close to their release. Particularly when their own game is about to ship.

And if I do sound like I"m defending MOO 3, I am only pointing out facts. Some people do like MOO 3 and it has received some positive reviews. These aren't my opinions, these are just the facts on the matter.

I hope people understand.
Reply #8 from Stardock Forums Top
np brad. you have real class. gamespot's one of my favorite sites. i was a touch outraged at how high it got; but your reasoning makes sense. if you assume the game is going to be patched so that the ai does stuff the rest of the game is mediocre but not terrible. with ai fixes i'd give moo a 7. but right now it's a 2.
Reply #9 from Stardock Forums Top
Obviously, MOO3 did get a free ride with reviewers. Considering the legacy of the *name*, I'm sure many reviewers were subconsciously predisposed to find the good in the game and assume that the bad would be fixed by the release date -- because they also wanted the game to succeed.

Reply #10 from Stardock Forums Top
brad
you a class act! It takes a lot of guts to hold back when you have a lot riding on the outcome. The way you've treated us beta tester throughout the whole process, the care you have taken with the game, the care you take with windowblinds and all the other stardock products leads me to one conclusion. (i might be inventing a new word here) I can proudly say i'm a stardokian! :)

rich
Reply #11 from Stardock Forums Top
Brad = Most Reasonable and Calm Human on a forum board I've seen in months.

While I despised MOO3, i was not angry at IGN's review of 9.2 :notsure:

I'm unsure of how he rated it that high, but hey they alway rate high and anygame there below seven is usually horrid in real life. He liked the game, I didn't. In the case of MOO3, reviews didn't matter. I wanted to get the game cause it was a MOO game, and I fell for the trick like everyone else. The game is a diaster, but I see great things for Galactic Civilizations coming out of the fall of MOO3. All those desperate fans have been directed here by many MOO3 dislikers, and they seem very happy so far. Hey anything to make sure QS never makes a game again.
Reply #12 from Stardock Forums Top
I'd have more confidence in Gamespot's integrity if I knew ONE thing: were they the site that rejected Tom Chick's review because it was too negative?

I think Tom himself indicated that his review was posted on his own site because the mag/site (I don't think he specified) that "commissioned" his review rejected it.

He's certainly written enough reviews for Gamespot to be in the running for the "big name" MOO3 review. It might also explain why Gamespot was later to the market with their review of MOO3 compared to their competitors. Just a thought.
Reply #13 from Stardock Forums Top
Actually I think that there are two games that are getting a pretty big "free ride" out of the discontent on the MoO3 forums; "Space Empires 4 Gold" and of course a small game called "Galactic Civilisations".

My copy of MoO finally went back (I'll get it again if the patch (patches ?) remedy the enemy AI problems and allow for at least bit of microing in a more elegant way.

Elrikk

PS I got "Hearts of Iron" when I returned MoO. Boy, talk about glutton for punishment. ;) Out of the frying pan and into the fire.