PDA

View Full Version : Gamespot only 6.7



nickyjj_2004
3rd Jun 2005, 12:26
This game need a big patch for its battle size limits and morale
Big patch please

Commissar
3rd Jun 2005, 12:38
It was a spot-on review, in my opinion. Lot of potential, little of it fulfilled. Fun game, but could be a hell of a lot better.

Now, let's wait until Gelatinous Cube reads it. I predict foaming at the mouth, perhaps a coronary, maybe even some sort of attempted firebombing of Gamespot's headquarters.

jaywalker2309
3rd Jun 2005, 12:56
It was a spot-on review, in my opinion. Lot of potential, little of it fulfilled. Fun game, but could be a hell of a lot better.

Now, let's wait until Gelatinous Cube reads it. I predict foaming at the mouth, perhaps a coronary, maybe even some sort of attempted firebombing of Gamespot's headquarters.

I have no issue with the write up, but the final score totally doesnt reflect the game in my opinion. We have a `bad` history with Gamespot and our games. Readers scores almost always rate much much higher then there scores

CrossWire
3rd Jun 2005, 13:02
I have no issue with the write up, but the final score totally doesnt reflect the game in my opinion. We have a `bad` history with Gamespot and our games. Readers scores almost always rate much much higher then there scores

That's right. I clocked the readers score at 9.0 on GameSpot sometime last week but last I looked it had dropped to 8.5, still a good score.

As I remember I took a couple of there best rated reviews as a guideline as to what to buy. I won't mention the titles of the games but they where in amongst the most crappy and shallow games I have bought.

Commissar
3rd Jun 2005, 13:10
I have no issue with the write up, but the final score totally doesnt reflect the game in my opinion. We have a `bad` history with Gamespot and our games. Readers scores almost always rate much much higher then there scores

I rarely pay attention to the score, anyway - it's the write-up that I'm after. I find I rarely disagree with what they've got to say. The scores...well, I'm not quite sure how they wind up with the numbers they do.

Ryoken
3rd Jun 2005, 13:41
It is arbitrary. Game scores in reviews RARELY reflect the #1 concern of most gamers, I would bet; replayability.

Lets take HalfLife2. Beautiful game, decent story, good controls, sound, interface; all top notch. But the reality is that I will not play Halflife2 again through the SP mode; I know all the puzzles now so it would only a be a quest to endure the cheezy dialogue and improve my aim; though I will never be "ambushed". The only reason I would ever play HL2 again would be for MP; but MP is just a slugfest trigger-finger paradise. That just isnt fun for me.

Yes Halflife got a fantastic score!

Sid Meier's Pirates is another game that got high scores but I put down after a week of playing it. It just isnt enjoyable long-term.

This game, however, is. I may put it down for a month or so to play something else, but even if I do I will be back. I wont be back for HL2 or Pirates.

For $50 bucks.....

Kokopelli
3rd Jun 2005, 13:42
Sadly, I agree with the article and score. I was playing this lastnight and attacked my neighbor with 540 fussiliers against 360 militia. My lines were set to draw the enemy and decimate him with gunfire from multiple sides.

He charges all of his units towards one of my fussilier regiments, which of course was there in a single volley fire, and decimated 180 of my men. It is beyond annoying that this crap happens. Had that happened on a real 18th century battlefield, those militia men would have been cut down before they even thought about attacking my line. :mad:

Sithaka
3rd Jun 2005, 14:05
Sadly, I agree with the article and score. I was playing this lastnight and attacked my neighbor with 540 fussiliers against 360 militia. My lines were set to draw the enemy and decimate him with gunfire from multiple sides.

He charges all of his units towards one of my fussilier regiments, which of course was there in a single volley fire, and decimated 180 of my men. It is beyond annoying that this crap happens. Had that happened on a real 18th century battlefield, those militia men would have been cut down before they even thought about attacking my line. :mad:
you are complaining that he charges you with melee units and that he charges on one spot instead of spread them out along your line?

You also lost only half the troops that your opponent did with only slightly superior troops (but combined with the numbers, makes you the superior force). So while 180 might be a little too much, it happened because it seems you made a tactical error or the AI just outsmarted you.
And it is a game, while it does try to be semi realistic. There will be elements in it where it isnt. Besides if you look from gamebalance the cost difference between fusseliers and militia isnt that big, so fusseliers shouldnt be that strong (and you cant make militia cheaper+weaker because there is a limit to how much troops you can have and a militia heavy army would be completly useless then).

Villaret-Joyeuse
3rd Jun 2005, 14:07
Here is another review from Yahoo Games Domain - 7/10

http://gamesdomain.yahoo.com/pc/imperial_glory/review/118678

"Unfortunately, Imperial Glory is hard to unequivocally recommend due to some nagging flaws. Most are patchable, like the battle speed problem, but we can't assume it'll happen. As it is, it still has much to commend, but its peculiar design choices make it difficult to enjoy to its full potential."

jaywalker2309
3rd Jun 2005, 14:20
Here is another review from Yahoo Games Domain - 7/10

http://gamesdomain.yahoo.com/pc/imperial_glory/review/118678

"Unfortunately, Imperial Glory is hard to unequivocally recommend due to some nagging flaws. Most are patchable, like the battle speed problem, but we can't assume it'll happen. As it is, it still has much to commend, but its peculiar design choices make it difficult to enjoy to its full potential."

Hmm again another reviewer wishing it more like RTW.. why cant people allow differences to exist, rather then just having 1 game be cloned

Mike_B
3rd Jun 2005, 14:22
This game need a big patch for its battle size limits and morale
Big patch please

Well firstly morale is in the game and second the battle size is because of the engine and probably a design decissions as well. Personnaly I rather have it this way than with Cossacks 2 that promisses thousands of troops but can't deliver it.

Kokopelli
3rd Jun 2005, 14:23
you are complaining that he charges you with melee units and that he charges on one spot instead of spread them out along your line?

You also lost only half the troops that your opponent did with only slightly superior troops (but combined with the numbers, makes you the superior force). So while 180 might be a little too much, it happened because it seems you made a tactical error or the AI just outsmarted you.
And it is a game, while it does try to be semi realistic. There will be elements in it where it isnt. Besides if you look from gamebalance the cost difference between fusseliers and militia isnt that big, so fusseliers shouldnt be that strong (and you cant make militia cheaper+weaker because there is a limit to how much troops you can have and a militia heavy army would be completly useless then).

Actually, I was complaining at the speed he moved. Regardless of where he attacked, he would have been under fire from all of my forces on the flanks. Even if a fussilier isn't that supperior of a unit to a militiaman, the militiaman still has to cross a field under heavy fire. The problem was speed, not tactical error. The speed has been one of the major gripes about this game on these boards.

Nial
3rd Jun 2005, 14:39
I usually don't get into these rate the game conversations. But I would think that by our continued presence and posting we show that there is something about this game........Whether it's the Era or the wish to slip on Napoleons shoes for an evening. Who knows? I truly like this game. And I've played alot of strat games. Are there things that I would like changed or tweaked? Yes. Has any of these irritants kept me from spending every waking hour Im not at work playing? NO! Enough said. :)

*** Girlfiend calls****

Want to get something to eat? "Nah"
Want me to come over? " If you want"
Are you going to stop playing if I come over. " Doubt it"

Ryoken
3rd Jun 2005, 14:46
My tactics have been improving lately as I have played a few more battles very slowly to take screenshots and a few reloads to alter my tactics a bit for my AAR to minimize casualties.

I find that placement is extremely important. As can be illustrated in the Battle of Batavia description in my AAR in the other sub-forum, just a SLIGHT rise and a building will make a huge impact. As will WAITING for the enemy and preparing carefully.

Queeg
3rd Jun 2005, 15:05
I agree with much of what the GameSpot reviewer wrote. But he's dead wrong on a few important points.

1. Diplomacy is not a weak option. If anything, it's too powerful.

2. Morale is in the game. It just doesn't kick in as quickly as most people would like.

3. Artillery is not worthless. If you place it and protect it well, artillery can be devastating. Range, though, could be increased.

4. The camera in the naval battles does not spin in the wind. You control it. That part of his review just makes no sense at all.

Coax74
3rd Jun 2005, 15:49
*** Girlfiend calls****

Want to get something to eat? "Nah"
Want me to come over? " If you want"
Are you going to stop playing if I come over. " Doubt it"

LMAO!!! My friend, I totally identify with this! Except I lied and said I would be out of town for two days (the weekend conveniently) when in fact I turned off my phone and vegged out playing Imp Glory the whole time. I was on the verge of victory, crushing the world with Russia, how could I possibly give up any free time???

colmde
3rd Jun 2005, 17:18
Actually something I noticed in the gamespot review...


However, the peaceful route can be a bit frustrating, as you can easily spend years and thousands of resources to improve relations with a country to the point that it's almost ready to join your empire, only to see a rival empire simply invade and take it over.

This reviewer has not heard of defensive alliances then?

Nahirean
3rd Jun 2005, 17:29
Agree with the reviewer - I actually think he was being fair. I beleive the game deserves a 5.0 out of 10 tops. The land battles just plain suck, as do the Naval battles. They aren't fun, the troops are stupid - and the only hope the game has in this department would be to make the unit stats modifiable. It looks like, in all thier genius, that they have not - dooming IG to failure.

Nial
3rd Jun 2005, 17:31
I frequently wonder when I read reviews. How long did the reviewer spend playing the game? Some things that I was disapointed by when I first started playing IG turned out to be not as bad or hard to overcome, as I became more in tune with the different aspects of the game. Some still irritate me. But I find that over all Im pretty content. Though there are things I hope they patch. :cool:

Commissar
3rd Jun 2005, 17:42
Hmm again another reviewer wishing it more like RTW.. why cant people allow differences to exist, rather then just having 1 game be cloned

You have Car A and Car B. Car A has air conditioning; Car B does not. You like the style of Car B, but you say, "Boy, Car B would be so much better if it just had air conditioning!" Now, if I were to leap in and say, "Shut up, Car A fanboy! Why can't you let Car B different? If you love Car A so much, why don't you just marry it?" you'd probably call me a nutter and dismiss me out of hand.

That's the perspective of those of us who feel that dismissing a good feature just because Rome happened to have it, too, is ludicrous.

Ryoken
3rd Jun 2005, 17:46
You have Car A and Car B. Car A has air conditioning; Car B does not. You like the style of Car B, but you say, "Boy, Car B would be so much better if it just had air conditioning!" Now, if I were to leap in and say, "Shut up, Car A fanboy! Why can't you let Car B different? If you love Car A so much, why don't you just marry it?" you'd probably call me a nutter and dismiss me out of hand.

That's the perspective of those of us who feel that dismissing a good feature just because Rome happened to have it, too, is ludicrous.

Well spoken

Commissar
3rd Jun 2005, 17:47
Well firstly morale is in the game and second the battle size is because of the engine and probably a design decissions as well. Personnaly I rather have it this way than with Cossacks 2 that promisses thousands of troops but can't deliver it.

Morale may be in the game, but I've never seen it.

And what do you mean, the battle size limitations are due to the engine? There's a little game out there known as Rome: Total War that has it hands-down over Imperial Glory in terms of battle size on an exponential scale, and that came out...what, a year ago? Year and a half? I don't have a lot of experience with Pyro Studios, but an engine that can only handle 1000 men seems like something that should be left in 1998 where it belongs.

A lot of people got suckered into this game expecting at least an attempt at representing Napelonic era battles, which were, I think we can agree, at the very least large in scale. Thousand man skirmishes - which only appear late in the game, by the way - probably aren't the best representations of that. The technology's available to make it happen, as other games have proven. If your computer can't handle it...tough. Time to upgrade from 64 megs of RAM, anyway.

Nahirean
3rd Jun 2005, 17:56
Morale may be in the game, but I've never seen it.

And what do you mean, the battle size limitations are due to the engine? There's a little game out there known as Rome: Total War that has it hands-down over Imperial Glory in terms of battle size on an exponential scale, and that came out...what, a year ago? Year and a half? I don't have a lot of experience with Pyro Studios, but an engine that can only handle 1000 men seems like something that should be left in 1998 where it belongs.

A lot of people got suckered into this game expecting at least an attempt at representing Napelonic era battles, which were, I think we can agree, at the very least large in scale. Thousand man skirmishes - which only appear late in the game, by the way - probably aren't the best representations of that. The technology's available to make it happen, as other games have proven. If your computer can't handle it...tough. Time to upgrade from 64 megs of RAM, anyway.



^^^-- Absolutely! It's false advertising! Look at the screenshots and the battle movies before the game was released, TOTALLY different from the actual product. The actual product is crap. The battles in the previews were "Epic." Deceptive and false advertising.

Commissar
3rd Jun 2005, 18:00
I wouldn't call it crap. I do enjoy the game, it's simply not what I was expecting (or hoping for). There's a lot that I'd like to see tweaked or rethought, but I don't characterize it as a bad game. In fact, there's really very little it'd take to make me happy (with land battles, at least; I've forsaken the naval battles as hopeless contrivances, created by a parcel of landsmen who wouldn't know a bowline from a hitch). I'm not going to say just what that'd be, since others have gone at length about the ideal changes, and I for the most part agree.

Sithaka
3rd Jun 2005, 19:05
And what do you mean, the battle size limitations are due to the engine? There's a little game out there known as Rome: Total War that has it hands-down over Imperial Glory in terms of battle size on an exponential scale, and that came out...what, a year ago? Year and a half? I don't have a lot of experience with Pyro Studios, but an engine that can only handle 1000 men seems like something that should be left in 1998 where it belongs.
ahum you mean a half year ago and wether this engine is outdated because it can "only" handle 1000 men depends on how graphical you do it and how much options every men has (it would seem to me to be far easier to handle 10000 men that all act the same way (so you only have one unique) than it is to have 1000, but all those 1000 can act seperatly).
For example engines in mmorpgs have trouble handling 400+ people in one spot, but off course all those 400 are actual people that the engine all has to keep track off.

However RTW can handle more seperate units than IG can, but in IG the wounded lay around (or atleast in the UK version) which they do not in RTW. You cant hide in buildings though in RTW.

It also seems that people are mostly mentioning what IG doesnt have from RTW than what IG has done differently and possibly better than RTW. I personally like the naval battles in IG alot more than in RTW and if you dont, you can always let the AI do it for you. Which is your only option in RTW, imo better to have tried and implement and learn what does and doesnt work than not try at all (which would lead to it never being in any game at all).
Im glad that IG isnt just a RTW clone, because it means that developers can get more ideas on how to make a better strategy game and it is also rather dull to play the same game again. Much better to get a different game that might not be as good as RTW, but different so I can enjoy it when Im tired with playing RTW.

jaywalker2309
3rd Jun 2005, 19:49
You have Car A and Car B. Car A has air conditioning; Car B does not. You like the style of Car B, but you say, "Boy, Car B would be so much better if it just had air conditioning!" Now, if I were to leap in and say, "Shut up, Car A fanboy! Why can't you let Car B different? If you love Car A so much, why don't you just marry it?" you'd probably call me a nutter and dismiss me out of hand.

That's the perspective of those of us who feel that dismissing a good feature just because Rome happened to have it, too, is ludicrous.

We never dismissed anything, we just did it OUR way. What i am referring to is someone reviewing a game and saying it lacks feature A and B JUST because they were in another game, maybe they wouldnt have worked in our game..

Anyways, i never said i didnt disagree with the review, the write up is quite fair, but the score doesnt reflect his words.

jfabozzi
3rd Jun 2005, 20:40
If you read the gamespot review they make it VERY clear that they expected IG to be a Napoleonic Clone of RTW. Clearly this is unfair. IG has many admirable qualities not the least of which is significant replayability. The game is not perfect, far from it but I have already spent far more hours playing this game as I have done playing Pirates.

I only wonder what kind of score this game would have gotten if it had been named "Sid Meier's Imperial Glory"...

Ryoken
3rd Jun 2005, 20:56
To be fair to Sid, Sid Meier's Imperial Glory would have a 150 page manual, huge unit poster, random strategy maps, and a hyperlinked gloriopedia to guide the lost gamers to the light.

Queeg
3rd Jun 2005, 21:05
No one can quibble with reviewers over differences in taste. Where I take issue with the GameSpot reviewer is in the many areas where he is just plain wrong about the game mechanics. Diplomacy does work. Cannons are powerful if used properly. And where he ever got the idea that the camera in naval battles spins in the wind is just beyond me.

Overall, not one of GameSpot's better efforts.

Nial
3rd Jun 2005, 21:17
No one can quibble with reviewers over differences in taste. Where I take issue with the GameSpot reviewer is in the many areas where he is just plain wrong about the game mechanics. Diplomacy does work. Cannons are powerful if used properly. And where he ever got the idea that the camera in naval battles spins in the wind is just beyond me.

Overall, not one of GameSpot's better efforts.


Agreed........If you are going to speak as an expert. Better know of what you speak before you open your mouth or lift a pen. :)

Gelatinous Cube
3rd Jun 2005, 21:33
It was a spot-on review, in my opinion. Lot of potential, little of it fulfilled. Fun game, but could be a hell of a lot better.

Now, let's wait until Gelatinous Cube reads it. I predict foaming at the mouth, perhaps a coronary, maybe even some sort of attempted firebombing of Gamespot's headquarters.

Thanks for the mention, but I actually find it to be a spot-on Review. As Jaycw said, the Score doesn't reflect what he wrote. He compares it to STW, yet STW has an 8.something score. Nevertheless, he's right on many points--but some of the game is lost on him because he insists on viewing it as a TW-Clone, and not a unique game.

CrossWire
3rd Jun 2005, 21:59
Anyways, i never said i didnt disagree with the review, the write up is quite fair, but the score doesnt reflect his words.

Exactamondo....

Nahirean
3rd Jun 2005, 22:11
We never dismissed anything, we just did it OUR way. What i am referring to is someone reviewing a game and saying it lacks feature A and B JUST because they were in another game, maybe they wouldnt have worked in our game..

Anyways, i never said i didnt disagree with the review, the write up is quite fair, but the score doesnt reflect his words.


Jay,

Why wont you help us out? Why won't you either: Tell us how to mod unit stats, or at least tell us if it's possible?

Queeg
3rd Jun 2005, 22:11
Having just read the Yahoo Games Domain review, I think I agree with most every word he wrote. Where he gave it a 7.0, though, I think I would give it an 8.5. Why? Because, to me, the campaign game is more imprtant than the tactical battles. I buy a strategy game for strategy; if tactical battles are my main interest, I play a wargame. I think how you rate this game depends heavily on which aspect of the game most interests you.

Queeg
3rd Jun 2005, 22:12
Jay,

Why wont you help us out? Why won't you either: Tell us how to mod unit stats, or at least tell us if it's possible?

Excellent question. A little help from on high would be appreciated.

Nahirean
3rd Jun 2005, 23:29
Excellent question. A little help from on high would be appreciated.

I will be surprised if he responds.

Webrider
4th Jun 2005, 02:01
ok .. I find it totally amazing you wonder why it is compared to the TW series...

Lets make a RTS where you don't lasso units or get to set groups with the ctrl plus number button.. but lets not call it a RTS so you don't compare it to the rest of the games of that type.... call it a design pick that you click on each unit .. so it will be different .. not the same game..... come on.

You can in no way try to say this game is a totally original idea on concept and wonder why it is compared to the TW series.

Lets use square map icons instead of round like the tw series and call it a totally new concept in gaming..... errr ok sounds good to me give it a 9 out of 10 and lets call it good.

Villaret-Joyeuse
4th Jun 2005, 03:31
I think the reviewers, in some respects, were very fair. They gave the game props for many of the new innovations particularly for the inclusion of naval battles. However, I think the main gripe that they echo is the disappoint due to the unfulfilled potentional: Small unit sizes, etc....

Mike_B
4th Jun 2005, 09:53
Morale may be in the game, but I've never seen it.

And what do you mean, the battle size limitations are due to the engine? There's a little game out there known as Rome: Total War that has it hands-down over Imperial Glory in terms of battle size on an exponential scale, and that came out...what, a year ago? Year and a half? I don't have a lot of experience with Pyro Studios, but an engine that can only handle 1000 men seems like something that should be left in 1998 where it belongs.

A lot of people got suckered into this game expecting at least an attempt at representing Napelonic era battles, which were, I think we can agree, at the very least large in scale. Thousand man skirmishes - which only appear late in the game, by the way - probably aren't the best representations of that. The technology's available to make it happen, as other games have proven. If your computer can't handle it...tough. Time to upgrade from 64 megs of RAM, anyway.

Maybe only 1000 men but not all the same as in RTW, different faces/clothes and animations, higher level of detail etc. As for suckered in the game never promised to have battles like RTW..



^^^-- Absolutely! It's false advertising! Look at the screenshots and the battle movies before the game was released, TOTALLY different from the actual product. The actual product is crap. The battles in the previews were "Epic." Deceptive and false advertising.

That's just plain rubbish, false advertising again the game never promised to have battles like RTW or Cossacks.

Queeg
4th Jun 2005, 16:19
The battles I'm fighting look just like the ones in the previews. No complaints on that score here.

Nahirean
4th Jun 2005, 18:42
That's just plain rubbish, false advertising again the game never promised to have battles like RTW or Cossacks.

Rubbish? Look at the screenshots on the back of the game, on the loading screens. Watch the videos previewing the game, they tried to pass it off that the battles would be much larger than they actually are.

Ryoken
4th Jun 2005, 18:50
I am satisfied with unit sizes (though I would like them to be larger). I can accept that there is some level of abstraction (each dude represents a theoretically larger number). This is true of fleet sizes in virtally every game I have ever played; even Europa Universalis II where you can have HUGE fleets they dont appear until the late game usually and even then they are all killed in a single war usually.

But I have to agree that the game advertising did attempt to present the battles as Epic.

Gelatinous Cube
4th Jun 2005, 22:29
Rubbish? Look at the screenshots on the back of the game, on the loading screens. Watch the videos previewing the game, they tried to pass it off that the battles would be much larger than they actually are.

The one's on the back of the box? Well, let's see. The top one actually shows you the unit-roster at the bottom of the "screen". So that's not false advertising. And the bottom one is easily something you could get in a mid-game battle.

napoleon1066
4th Jun 2005, 22:34
Just reading off of the back of the game box here: "Command your forces in titanic battles on land and at sea."

I agree with the feeling that the land battles are scaled. But 6 ships? how is that titanic?