GameSpot Gives Tribes a 5.5

Discussions about the latest news in the Might and Magic community.

Moderators: Moderators, Celestial Heavens Staff

User avatar
Wurtzel
Scout
Scout
Posts: 155
Joined: 06 Jan 2006
Location: Perth Australia

GameSpot Gives Tribes a 5.5

Postby Wurtzel » Oct 21 2007, 4:26

In my case the anger is directed at the unfounded message the reviewer put out.. And that nessage is that it's not worth buying the game. As someone who wants the HOMM series to continue, this could, albeit unlikely, affect the future of the game.
I THINK SO THEREFORE I AM

User avatar
Wraith
Scout
Scout
Posts: 159
Joined: 10 Nov 2006

GameSpot Gives Tribes a 5.5

Postby Wraith » Oct 21 2007, 6:23

it doesnt matter,this gamespot reviewer sucks in this game,so he gives score 5.5,ign gives score 7.9 and he says it wasnt hard.

User avatar
Meandor
Blood Fury
Blood Fury
Posts: 478
Joined: 01 Jul 2006
Location: Lithuania

Postby Meandor » Oct 21 2007, 7:51

jeff wrote:Let's face it Heroes V while an ok game it has failed to re-ignite the flame of interest of many of us old heads use to have for this franchise, and to expect tribes would was not realistic.


So you haven`t played it yet but you already know that Tribes failed to re-ignite the flame?
I hated basic game, i couldn`t care less about HoF but Tribes did it for me.

MistWeaver wrote:Ok, Ill try again. For example you bought new HoMM5 addon and discovered that there is nothing new, except for few MP maps. But nevertheless Gamespot gives this addon - 8.3, just because its still better than original. Is it fine with you ? I doubt it.


We are talking about TotE, not about any addon. SoD got 7(while basic game 9.1) and thats understandable because it brought only new campaigns, some maps and artifacts while Tribes receive even lower score for being biggest HoMM expanshion ever with two races and alternative upgrades.
...

User avatar
Jolly Joker
Round Table Hero
Round Table Hero
Posts: 3316
Joined: 06 Jan 2006

Postby Jolly Joker » Oct 21 2007, 8:24

I think it's not even debatable. The same Brett Tood gave Hammers a 6.4, complaining in the Cons about "no challenging missisons". :) Would anybody except Brett Todd seriously maintain that Hammers of Fate is better than Tribes as a Homm Expansion (and not even only marginally)?
ZZZzzzz....

ArchangelGabriel
Leprechaun
Leprechaun
Posts: 17
Joined: 21 Jun 2006

GameSpot Gives Tribes a 5.5

Postby ArchangelGabriel » Oct 21 2007, 11:43

The reasons are not childish by any means. Heroes is damn slow and can be quite hard if you take too long. How many times did I fight against an overwhelming army of the AI during campains just because I had to walk to him and lost many troops while the AI just amassed thousands of troops during the hours of gameplay.
Furthermore it's nearly impossible to raise a second hero. Troops are never enough for two heroes especially in multiplayer. That game definitely lags a steady gameplay just because you have to wait or run 5 or more turns back into your city only to replenish your troops. I do agree that 5.5 is a little bit harsh. But you have to understand that Heroes neither is nor ever was the godfather of round strategy without any flaws in gameplay. In solo mode it can get pretty much boring and during multiplayer you should have a good alternate activity if you don't want to sleep in front of your monitor. And I'm talking just about 2 players.

kingu
Leprechaun
Leprechaun
Posts: 20
Joined: 20 May 2006

Postby kingu » Oct 21 2007, 12:11

could it be that the reviewer was just too dumb to play the game correctly and that's why he lost vast amouts of troops every time he did combat?

User avatar
Meandor
Blood Fury
Blood Fury
Posts: 478
Joined: 01 Jul 2006
Location: Lithuania

Postby Meandor » Oct 21 2007, 12:13

"That game definitely lags a steady gameplay just because you have to wait or run 5 or more turns back into your city only to replenish your troops."

Secondary heroes say "Hi".
...

User avatar
jeff
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 3715
Joined: 06 Jan 2006

Postby jeff » Oct 21 2007, 13:07

MistWeaver wrote: Ok, Ill try again. For example you bought new HoMM5 addon and discovered that there is nothing new, except for few MP maps. But nevertheless Gamespot gives this addon - 8.3, just because its still better than original. Is it fine with you ? I doubt it.


Actually that logic only makes sense if the review does not factor in originality as well. Sequels that only fix a previous versions flaws is doomed to a lower rating, otherwise MM7 would have been rated higher than MM6 and MM8 would have been the highest of the three. However MM8 was panned by many reviews as a retread of an aging game engine. As when it comes to a review your logic will never hold up, they look at improvements and innovation, and innovation will frequently be lacking in a sequel, it’s just the nature of the business. To restate my biggest complaint of the whole H-V experience, Tribes fails to address one of the biggest flaws a very capable but user unfriendly editor. Since in my view that was not addressed a 5.5 is about 4 points too high. To others where their pet peeves were addressed, then a 5.5 may be too low. It’s all in how UBI has addressed each individual’s concerns.
Mala Ipsa Nova :bugsquash:

User avatar
arturchix
Titan
Titan
Posts: 1352
Joined: 06 Jan 2006
Location: Latvia

Postby arturchix » Oct 21 2007, 13:49

Oh give me a break. Why bother to review the game expansions then? Just review the original game and move on, ignore the expansions. I can perfectly understand that an expansion might never be rated as high as the original game but to blame it to be similar in style to the original game? What kind of innovation level do you expect in an expansion? A total overhaul? And just because it's an expansion it can't get a higher grade than mediocre?

It's clearly obvious that Ubisoft PR department sucks at work with the US review sites, if they do it at all. Just look at other reviews - for example, Oblivion expansion "Knights of the Nine" was a total crap which included several minor quests that for some time were already available for download plus a one big quest. And yet all of the major US review sites praise Bethesda for some groundbreaking work and Gamespot gives 8.3 out of 10. A big part of EA produced games are rushed and crappy, yet the major reviewers praise them. The situation is simple - PR guys work (perhaps even pay?) with the review sites and either they treat the particular developer games more nicely and/or assign a reviewer who knows how such a game should be played. Ignore the review sites and they will find a way to blame the game for whatever reason, i.e. assigning a console reviewer to review Heroes. It's similar when working with the mass media - if a company wants a better image and no unpleasant surprises, it has to work with the mass media, establish informal relations and stuff. I assume in this matter Ubisoft in US doesn't do a thing.

User avatar
Jolly Joker
Round Table Hero
Round Table Hero
Posts: 3316
Joined: 06 Jan 2006

Postby Jolly Joker » Oct 21 2007, 14:14

You forget that there wasn't even an editor in the original game - and it still got an 8.2.
An addon is not for "addressing" things. That's what patches are for, and you don't pay for a patch. An addon gives additional content. I would be pissed like hell if I would have to buy an addon to get a streamlined edtor that wouldn't be available in a patch - and they would market it as "additional content". If you have a gripe with the editor, it's not a ToE problem and it certainly isn't the task of an addon to "fix" that problem.

Compare this with the 3 addons for Disciples 2. Disciples 2 got an initial rating of 8.4. The first TWO addons - clearly a customer rip-off AND very difficult addons - got 7.0 both.
Here's an excerpt of the review:

"However, Guardians of the Light isn't very substantial. It's halfway suited to new Disciples II players, who could just as well pick up a dirt-cheap copy of Disciples II from their local bargain bin, and it's halfway suited to experienced Disciples II players who would probably expect more from this add-on than what its dozen-odd skirmish maps and two high-level mini-campaigns provide... The main reason the original campaigns are in here is because the new high-level campaigns may only be played if you have a leader character of 10th level or higher. So unless you've finished the original campaigns and still have the saved data on your hard drive, unless you've downloaded someone else's saved game, or unless you happen to look down in the game's readme file to find the clause about how some high-level leaders are hidden on one of the game discs' directories, this means you'll need to play through the original campaigns before you can get to the new content."

The rating was 7.0 for both, I repeat.

However, strange and even stranger, if you read the review of Rise of the Elves, the 3rd D2 addon, (which got a 7.6) you read:
"The previous two add-ons, Guardians of the Light and Servants of the Dark, were just marginally good and seemed more like re-releases of the original game than fully featured expansions."
Can it get dumber? After all they got a 7.0. We read further about that addon:
"The core of Disciples II doesn't change here, but it's a tried-and-true formula that's effectively stood the test of time." Oh, indeed.
And a bit later we learn:
"All in all, Disciples II fans should have fun learning the nuances of this new race. Apart from the obvious superficial distinctions, the differences between all Disciples II factions have always been quite subtle, and the elves are no exception. These differences are meaningful in practice and are interesting to learn. You'll get to pit this new faction against all the others, thus creating new game combinations and strategies.
The campaign, or "saga," in Rise of the Elves consists of eight lengthy scenarios that ought to give even experienced Disciples II players a hearty challenge."

Now, don't get me wrong here. I like Disciples 2 and while I missed out the addons initially I bought the gold edition. What clearly is wrong is the different rating standards used here.
ZZZzzzz....

agni
Leprechaun
Leprechaun
Posts: 39
Joined: 19 Oct 2007

GameSpot Gives Tribes a 5.5

Postby agni » Oct 21 2007, 14:20

Anyway, having played the expansion for a day now, i think it 'completes' the game. it addresses many shortcomings, makes useless troops moderately useful, forces you to significantly change strategies a bit, and in general makes the overall dynamic really different.

of course there's still a lot more to be done balance-wise, and it is repetitive... but i think the whole point of the game is learning through trial and error.

don't know if i'm sadistic or something, but it really is kinda fun loading the same frustrating battle because your last savefile is too far back, get frustrated not coming close to winning the battle in three or four tries, then try something as mundane as splitting troops and suddenly find yourself victorious...

User avatar
jeff
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 3715
Joined: 06 Jan 2006

Postby jeff » Oct 21 2007, 15:15

arturchix wrote: Oh give me a break. Why bother to review the game expansions then? Just review the original game and move on, ignore the expansions. I can perfectly understand that an expansion might never be rated as high as the original game but to blame it to be similar in style to the original game? What kind of innovation level do you expect in an expansion? A total overhaul? And just because it's an expansion it can't get a higher grade than mediocre?

It's clearly obvious that Ubisoft PR department sucks at work with the US review.


No where did I say an expansion should get no more than a mediocre grade, but I did say an expansion should not be guaranteed at least a grade no lower than the original. Type of innovation beats the heck out of me, I don't write reviews, I happen to like most expansions if I liked the original and enjoyed all three of the MM6-8 run. The fact that H-V was a major disappointment to several of us has fueled a lot of the fury of a meaningless review.

As far as PR, UBI has no PR plan for NA, though English is the primary language for this franchise, the English sites (not just US but UK as well) were the last to get many of the updates throughout the entire H-V development. Justified or not reviewers on this side of the Atlantic have been given more than a few reasons to ignore or be overly harsh to UBI in general. It has also contributed to a relatively lackluster sales performance here in the US. This review will certainly not help, so I guess we in NA ought to thank UBI for the late release so we as a whole can further consider whether to buy it or not. Though most including I, will use player reactions here at this and other forum to be more of a guide than any review. The risk of poor reviews and the possible fan reaction to those reviews is the best argument for the widest possible initial release. I hope not but I suspect there will be at least a slight loss of sales over here because of these lackluster reviews, important or not.

Jolly Joker wrote:You forget that there wasn't even an editor in the original game - and it still got an 8.2.
An addon is not for "addressing" things. That's what patches are for, and you don't pay for a patch. An addon gives additional content. I would be pissed like hell if I would have to buy an addon to get a streamlined edtor that wouldn't be available in a patch - and they would market it as "additional content". If you have a gripe with the editor, it's not a ToE problem and it certainly isn't the task of an addon to "fix" that problem.


First though you hated H-IV, the final and best version of the editor came with the WoW expansion. Second the fact the editor did not come with the original was a major disappointment, but tempered with the hopes of what would be delivered would be worth the wait. WRONG!!! It to this day is a horribly difficult editor if trying to create anything but a basic map. No wonder the first release did not have a campaign capability. It takes so long to do one map that it was not necessary to be able to link them. Sorry but the editor still pisses me off.
Mala Ipsa Nova :bugsquash:

User avatar
rdeford
Assassin
Assassin
Posts: 299
Joined: 17 Apr 2007
Location: Sequim, USA
Contact:

GameSpot Gives Tribes a 5.5

Postby rdeford » Oct 21 2007, 15:32

=======quote=========
"That game definitely lags a steady gameplay just because you have to wait or run 5 or more turns back into your city only to replenish your troops."

========quote========
To restate my biggest complaint of the whole H-V experience, Tribes fails to address one of the biggest flaws a very capable but user unfriendly editor.

=====quote============
How many times did I fight against an overwhelming army of the AI during campains just because I had to walk to him and lost many troops while the AI just amassed thousands of troops during the hours of gameplay.

======reply===========
These H5 complaints are all valid, and they are related. You see, it is entirely possible for a mapmaker to design an H5 map that does not have the faults mentioned. However, UBI does not seem inclined to do so. And, because of the user-unfriendly editor, there are not enough of the old HOMM mapmakers like Jeff, who know how to do it, doing H5 maps.

Consequently, I cannot give TOTE a 8-10 rating. But, I like to play H5 and I love to make H5 maps, even with the highly capable but hard to learn editor. So, I would rate TOTE as a 7.5, and, as I've stated earlier in this thread, I think the reviewer is oriented towards FPS or RTS games and should not have been given this assignment.
rdeford, Mage Of Soquim

“Forgiving and being forgiven, loving and being loved,
living and letting live, is the simple basis for it all."

Ernest Holmes 1984

User avatar
Jolly Joker
Round Table Hero
Round Table Hero
Posts: 3316
Joined: 06 Jan 2006

Postby Jolly Joker » Oct 21 2007, 15:54

@ Jeff
I fail to see what your griping about the editor has to do with the Gamespot review. It isn't even mentioned.
ZZZzzzz....

User avatar
Moragauth
Demon
Demon
Posts: 305
Joined: 22 May 2007

GameSpot Gives Tribes a 5.5

Postby Moragauth » Oct 21 2007, 16:12

ToE deserves roughly a 7 - 7.5, not 5.5. Evidently, players rate it at around 8.0. Whatever the reviewers problems with the game are, they do not seem to be bothering the players. The inclusion of alternate upgrades plus the fact that it is stand-alone are enough for me to give it a 7.

One may insist it deserves a 1 or so. I think that is ridiculous and even on the verge of whining, but whatever. Indeed, if Knights of the Nine somehow managed to get a high score, it is questionable that HoMM V's biggest expansion should get a 5.5. My only problems with TOE is that the AI is still lacking and that balance is not where it should be.

User avatar
Rion
Leprechaun
Leprechaun
Posts: 33
Joined: 02 Jul 2006
Location: Denmark

GameSpot Gives Tribes a 5.5

Postby Rion » Oct 21 2007, 16:32

The problem is he considers liches "garden-variety". Nearly no units are "garden-variety". Most units have something they good at, and something you are not supposed to do against them. He doesn't seem to grasp that.
Please inform me if my sentences contains grammatical mistakes.

User avatar
HodgePodge
Round Table Knight
Round Table Knight
Posts: 3528
Joined: 06 Jan 2006

Postby HodgePodge » Oct 21 2007, 16:51

jeff wrote:… As far as PR, UBI has no PR plan for NA, though English is the primary language for this franchise …

… It to this day is a horribly difficult editor if trying to create anything but a basic map. No wonder the first release did not have a campaign capability. It takes so long to do one map that it was not necessary to be able to link them. Sorry but the editor still pisses me off.

Even I would have considered buying Tribes in spite of Ubival's disregard for customer relations … especially in North America; but if Nival didn't make the Map/Campaign Editor USER-FRIENDLY in Tribes, then I won't be purchasing this latest piece of shoddy crap!
Walk Softly & Respect All Life!

Click Here: Lords of War and Money … A Free & Fun Browser Game.

User avatar
Metathron
Round Table Hero
Round Table Hero
Posts: 2704
Joined: 29 Jan 2006
Location: Somewhere deep in the Caribbean...
Contact:

Postby Metathron » Oct 21 2007, 17:19

HodgePodge wrote:Even I would have considered buying Tribes in spite of Ubival's disregard for customer relations … especially in North America; but if Nival didn't make the Map/Campaign Editor USER-FRIENDLY in Tribes, then I won't be purchasing this latest piece of shoddy crap!


I think "shoddy crap" is really unwarranted, and that's coming from someone who was neither especially impressed with nor enamoured of HoMM V, still less HoF. It sucks that the editor is so difficult to use, but the game itself is more than solid. The alternate creature upgrades are what made my day (harking back to the days of HoMM IV in a way), and the game is enjoyable overall.

Also, would you agree with someone who claimed HoMM IV was a "piece of shoddy crap" because of the lacking adventure map AI? I know I wouldn't.
Jesus saves, Allah forgives, Cthulhu thinks you'd make a nice sandwich.

User avatar
HodgePodge
Round Table Knight
Round Table Knight
Posts: 3528
Joined: 06 Jan 2006

Postby HodgePodge » Oct 21 2007, 17:45

Metathron wrote:
HodgePodge wrote:Even I would have considered buying Tribes in spite of Ubival's disregard for customer relations … especially in North America; but if Nival didn't make the Map/Campaign Editor USER-FRIENDLY in Tribes, then I won't be purchasing this latest piece of shoddy crap!

I think "shoddy crap" is really unwarranted, and that's coming from someone who was neither especially impressed with nor enamoured of HoMM V, still less HoF. It sucks that the editor is so difficult to use, but the game itself is more than solid. The alternate creature upgrades are what made my day (harking back to the days of HoMM IV in a way), and the game is enjoyable overall.

Also, would you agree with someone who claimed HoMM IV was a "piece of shoddy crap" because of the lacking adventure map AI? I know I wouldn't.

No, Heroes IV was 'saved' by its fantastic Map/Campaign Editor! Without a user-friendly editor, Tribes doesn't deserve any better than a 1.0 … because a good editor is what keeps fans so interested in a Heroes game.

Take Heroes 3, while the editor isn't as good as Heroes IV, it was good enough and user-friendly enough for anyone to create a map. This kept the game replayable & fans interested for years … still today people create maps & campaigns for Heroes III!

Heroes IV really takes the Gold Medal in Map/Campaign Editors. In spite of its lackluster AI, the Heroes IV Map/Campaign Editor has allowed some of the best fan-made maps & campaigns ever created. Again, a good, user-friendly Map/Campaign Editor is such an important element of a game like Heroes that without it, the game isn't worth having.
Walk Softly & Respect All Life!

Click Here: Lords of War and Money … A Free & Fun Browser Game.

User avatar
arturchix
Titan
Titan
Posts: 1352
Joined: 06 Jan 2006
Location: Latvia

Postby arturchix » Oct 21 2007, 18:00

because a good editor is what keeps fans so interested in a Heroes game.
Is that really so? Personally I don't care how good is the game editor and I don't think most of the gamers do, except the mapmakers.


Return to “News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests