Turrican

Anyone played this? Oi Zacny, I'd love a 3MA episode featuring the likes of you, Troy, Tom and Bruce taking a look at this one. Something different and intriguing (possibly). http://slitherine.com/games/sjidaicollector

Didn't mean to post again - just wanted to link a good let's play for this.

Yeah, I think we all remember IGN's 9/10 for the abomination that was Rome 2 in release. I'm looking forward to the Endless Legend and Warhammer shows.

I just think CA have gone way off the boil since Shogun 2. Their emphasis now is purely on spectacle, cinematics, hawking DLC etc and they seem to have given up on the notions of realism, strategy, simulation and competent AI. I've bought every TW game since Shogun 1 was first released. I'm waiting on this one though - I just don't have any faith in the studio or the reviewers who will gladly give a AAA strategy title a 9/10 after an hour with it.

Agreed on all counts. I'd echo that Alpha Centauri is both phenomenal and possibly features the alien world as a character in the narrative to a greater degree than other space 4x games. However, I'm not a big player of space 4x generally and I'd imagine it's far easier to make the planet have a story when there is only one planet and you are on ground level as opposed to in its orbit or beyond. I do think the fact you can observe a planet and the development of its superior species is quite a nice bit of flavour in Stellaris.

Interesting but the graphics do seem to detract from the game. Very WoW-like and cartoony. It makes me fear that Civ VI is being developed primarily with mobile devices in mind.

Im curious, is this something unique to Civ V or do have the same view for other games? Did you like Civ IV better?

One of Chick's complaints is that each race is an arbitrary set of values with an icon attached, rather than an easily recognisable and logical personality. That's not a problem for me because I never liked the old Civ effect of "oh, Alexander's my neighbour, so it'll be war no matter what then" or "the aliens next door are Bears so they will be aggressive and like war". I prefer the idea that every strange new race you encounter could be anyone. However, Stellaris does have Chick's complaint covered in part because I've read that when the player creates a new race and plays a game with them they are added to the pool of races that appear in future games. So, if you want consistent species, just create them.

You're way too in love with the sound of your own voice to be able to consider other views. It's not about objectivity to me but breadth. For instance, if a reviewer scores a game "Consider Buying" it's more interesting and honest because the rating will reflect the review and leads into understanding how the reviewer has evaluated the game. However, if the score is "This is Street Fighter but I've never liked beat'em ups so I give it 1/10" this is both unfair and will turn readers off reading further. Nobody has argued that Tom shouldn't be allowed to use whatever score system he wishes, just as nobody has claimed he shouldn't be able to express his opinion. You keep using strawman arguments. I am simply expressing my dislike for his system. I don't know why you say "It's just numbers to you isn't it?", I've already stated that yes, that's exactly what it is. It's not gamers I am concerned for, it's developers and worthwhile games that may not get the interest they deserve if they are rated 1/5 on a site. You haven't explained why Tom's system has to be wed to numbers at all. Aren't the stars superfluous? Why would he need to use two scores, the number and the short description? You seem to be denying that numbers have any intrinsic value; which to me is as obtuse as it is incorrect. If a site decided to score games in the reverse, 10 to 1 so that MGSV got 2/10 and Dark Souls got a 1/10, would you think that was cool too (as long as they put a guide to the scores somewhere on a different web page)? Lastly, you've again spent your time arguing against things I haven't said. I didn't critique the Explorminate review, I said that they use a rating system similar to Tom's (only more objective) and don't have the need to pair it with a numerical score. For the record, I thought the review was fine and superior to Chick's which I thought was very poor, regardless of whether his view coincided with my own or not. I understand why you say it is a feature list but because of the space used to describe what the player will actually be doing in the game (as well as the critical opinion) it's actually more informative to a potential purchaser than Chick's screed of why he hated the game so much followed by his own feature list of begrudged positives at the end. Tom is probably my favourite participant on 3MA and I always find his views interesting to listen to even if I don't agree with them. His written work is more hit and miss for me. I don't feel the same need as you do to see eye to eye, I can accept that people have different opinions - which I thought was kind of your argument in the first place...

You're not wrong, but I still think that using a scoring system which is totally subjective and initially misleading, isn't helpful to people who are not regulars to the site or when sites like Metacritic average out scores which will now be slightly skewed as a result.

I wouldn't worry about engaging with me because as of yet you haven't anyway. I also can't understand why you think I'm taking a review of a video game personally - that doesn't make sense to me at all. Maybe you're allowed to offer a view and that isn't personal but mine is? I don't get it. Anyway, if Tom Chick hated Stellaris then cool, that's absolutely fine by me. There have been many games I hated, but I was objective enough to give them a genuine mark if I wrote an online review for them. Tom is trying to have his cake and eat it here. Why does he use stars at all? Why not simply make the scoring system, "love it", "like it", etc. Where is the need for a numerical system if not to denote a sliding scale, rather than a different category. Using numbers like most other sites that grade on a sliding scale is a choice - one that Explorminate or Angry Centaur have chosen to steer away from, and the clarity of their reviews and scoring benefits from it as a result. I realise that Chick's reviews are very subjective and that's fine by me too but if you score a game 1/5 (whatever the one means) you're conveying the wrong impression of the product.

You're completely missing the point here. I'm not even discussing the review or its merits. If a reviewer awards a score that is either baffling or completely at odds with the accompanying review, why do you think that it's my fault? If a reviewer uses a score, why shouldn't I take it seriously - is it a joke? Again; I don't have a problem with people critiquing a game or having an opinion different to my own. I just don't like to see a reviewer smearing a well-made and quality title by awarding it the worst score possible.

Ok well, say he was telling people they were some of the worst games ever made, what score do you think he'd give them?

You sound as though you believe there's a nobility in misleading people. Also, the conversation really isn't about having a difference of opinion or being a fanboy or whatever you guys on here want to use to justify a nonsensical position. Were elements of games such as Rome 2, CoH2 and Stellaris disappointing? Sure. Are they three examples of the worst games ever made? No. And to tell people they are is simply dishonest.

This is the same guy who believes Rome 2 and Company of Heroes 2 are also one star games. Enough said.

I'm not aware of being rude or offensive to anyone. I think I'm clear on the subject too. My response was to the initial comment that it was disappointing to see the furore over Rowan's review. I didn't attack him, I simply alluded to the fact that if someone slanders, smears and demeans a stranger over the Internet, it makes it harder for me to sympathise when it then happens to them. As for the review. My issue was never the wording or criticisms. I certainly didn't argue that a critic should censor themself. My complaint was that Rowan had described a game that was quite good and could become very good in the future but that the score was one of the worst in the history of the genre for the site he was writing for. I thought he should have had more awareness that he was effectively scoring the game far worse than his own review had described. However, since our fellow forumite posted the IGN scoring system on here I'm actually more of a mind that Rowan's score was not actually far off his review. The real issue seems to be that game scores are largely inflated on IGN. There are many "ok" and "average" games that have scored in the 7s and 8s. I really don't think Stellaris should be scored lower than the majority of the games I listed before but maybe the unfavourable comparison is not Rowan's fault after all. So I stand corrected on that.

Yeah, fair enough. I'd still say 6.3 is too low for the review as it's only 4 points away from mediocre (basically a waste of time) but the case could be argued. Perhaps the real issue here is that games have been scored far too highly on the site in general. I'd still put Stellaris at 8.2 by the IGN scale but don't have a problem if others don't think the game is any good. Each to their own.

Personally, I think it's a solid base that will be fleshed out into a something special over time. It's certainly one of the better space strategy games released. My issue isn't about how Rowan felt about the game per se and maybe if I was reviewing it on my own scale I might give it a 7 or similar. However, my issue is that his score (which does exist and does influence people - despite what people on these forums would like to pretend is the case) is way too low in context to the scoring system employed by IGN. I don't think you can simply act in a vacuum and then be surprised when others react to it. The points people have made about, "well scores are silly anyway", "different reviewers will see things differently" etc aren't wrong but they are irrelevant to this conversation. My point is that the score is way lower than the review when judged on the scoring scale of the site it was written for.

You're arguing against a position I don't hold. It's obviously a little too nuanced to fully grasp.

You've clearly not read my comment properly at all. As I said, I can understand his individual criticisms of a game (even though his experience of the game seems to have been unique). However, when a reviewer is writing for an outlet, they should have some awareness of the scoring system they are being asked to employ. It's all very well for you to say "well if only IGN didn't use this, etc..." but the reality is that they do use it and he knew this before submitting the review. This was not rowankaiser.com it is IGN and if he knowingly gives a score using their scale that is practically the lowest for a strategy game for several years it doesn't take a genius to realise that this will be perceived very poorly if the game is obviously one of the best (if flawed) strategy games of the past few years.

Well, I don't think Rowan Kaiser is a particularly nice person, so if he's taking heat over the internet then that's fine by me. Just karma doing its job. Speaking purely about the review, let's just look at the facts. The guy was writing for IGN and using their rating scale. So, in that context, was a score of 6.3 for Stellaris a fair one? Let's have a look at the scores given for full release strategy games over the past year: Stellaris - 6.3 Offworld Trading Company - 8.0 Battlefleet Gothic: Armada - 7.1 The Banner Saga 2 - 8.9 Dead Star - 7.1 Ashes of Singularity - 7.7 XCOM 2 - 9.3 Homeworld: Deserts of Kharak - 8.8 Tharsis - 4.8 Hard West - 7.3 Prison Architect - 8.3 Might & Magic Heroes VII - 6.4 World of Warships - 8.3 Massive Chalice - 6.7 Heroes of the Storm - 6.5 Galactic Civilizations III - 8.6 Invisible Inc. - 8.6 So out of the 17 strategy games released in the past 12 months we are told by Kaiser that Stellaris is only better than Tharsis. Now let's compare Stellaris to other 4x space games: Star Drive 2 - 6.9 Sid Meier's Starships - 6.5 Homeworld: Remastered - 9.0 Ancient Space - 8.3 Planetary Annihilation - 4.8 The Last Federation - 6.9 Horizon - 6.5 Endless Space - 8.0 Faster Than Light - 9.6 So, Stellaris is not just the second worst strategy game of the past year, it is also the second worst space strategy game in recent memory. Wow! Quite an achievement from a usually reliable developer. I wonder what went so wrong? I can respect an opinion I disagree with if it's born of valid reasons but awarding a low score to a big release that has been excellently received by critics and players simply smacks of attention-seeking. That's why Kaiser has copped so much flack for his absurd review.

Civ 6 October 11

So I played this for maybe 3 hours tonight. Really loved it so far. I think what we have here is probably the best foundation of any game I've played (Endless Legend may have something to say about that though). Yes, each solar system is essentially a circle full of stuff surrounded by other neighbouring circles surrounded by more stuff, so that you are effectively constantly looking at the same kind of vista. However, something is special here. Whereas Gal Civ 3 immedistely failed to grab me and even turned me off by its ugliness and lacklustre mechanics, Stellaris has its hooks into me already. Someone (probably Rowan) mentioned there isn't any trade in the game. Err yes there is. At first glance, the diplomacy seems better than say Civ5. There is a real sense of isolation when piloting your intrepid science ship through the cold reaches of outer space that I've not had since EveOnline. The score is absolutely majestic. I really hope they expand on the tracks here. Graphics are great. Mechanics sound. These are the important things people. These are the things that really won't/can't be changed. The vital question is, does the game have that special feel? For me, yes it does. Stronger, cleverer AI and features such as espionage etc can be bolted on later. What's important is that the foundations are rock solid. I'm very happy so far. Interesting to see the boys over at Explorminate leading the charge once more (as they did with Thea and XCom 2) awarding Stellaris their highest grade. Anyone who was put off by the 3MA pod should still check the game out, I'd say it's already the best space 4X out there and it's only going to get better.

I found it more than a little depressing to hear the cast being so critical of a masterpiece like the Dark Souls series and then wax on excitedly about Overwatch. Dark Souls is not hard. How many other games allow you to call in multiple people to aid you on your journey. The variety of gameplay, exploration and story of DS are unsurpassed by any other title. The conversation here was analogous to 3 people moaning about how they didn't get Pink Floyd and couldn't be bothered to work out what the lyrics meant before all getting excited about the colours and lights of the latest Justin Bieber video. Come on guys and gals, raise your game.

Ah crap. I bought the Galaxy version of the game too! Sounds like it needs a huge amount of fleshing out over the next couple of years before it's any good. All modern empire games need resources, military, exploration, religion/culture, economy, trade, diplomacy, espionage, internal politics and technology. If several of these aspects are missing the game will always feel incomplete.