A First Tribes Review

Angelspit · Unread postby **Angelspit** » 18 Oct 2007, 01:36

IGN is the first to publish a <a href="/http://pc.ign.com/articles/828/828077p1.html">review of Tribes of the East</a>, the new Heroes expansion. The article is fairly positive with a score of 7.9 out of 10. The reviewer liked the Orc faction and its various powers, the improved cutscenes and the new visuals. On the other hand, the game lost points because the author was forced to complete the Necropolis campaign before he could try the Orcs. There is also a comment about the need for more automation, but there was no indication of what area of micromanagement could be eliminated.

A very generic article that reads like a preview, but still miles ahead of the <a href="/http://www.1up.com/do/reviewPage?cId=31 ... ">trash</a> that was published on <a href="/http://www.1up.com/do/reviewPage?cId=3154749">1UP</a> last year. GameSpy usually has some of the best written reviews for Heroes games, so I can't wait to read what they think.

If you would like to take a look at the original page visit this link:
https://www.celestialheavens.com/1192671367

arturchix · Unread postby **arturchix** » 18 Oct 2007, 06:30

A pretty much positive review but I expected a higher score since ToE adds lots of new features - a bit more than just one extra faction and campaign.

Meandor · Unread postby **Meandor** » 18 Oct 2007, 07:03

On the other hand, the game lost points because the author was forced to complete the Necropolis campaign before he could try the Orcs.

And this is a bad thing because? It`s not like there are no scenarios/multiplayer maps where you can play with orcs

Jolly Joker · Unread postby **Jolly Joker** » 18 Oct 2007, 07:06

Yeah, strange, that conclusion, especially because the guy talks about all the new stuff for over a page.
Also I just saw that the site is giving November 20th as release date for Europe.

Akul · Unread postby **Akul** » 18 Oct 2007, 07:24

Gameplay lost points because it doesn't have caravans? WTF?

agni77 · Unread postby **agni77** » 18 Oct 2007, 08:17

caravans and automation is not even mentioned in the review! i can see how playing the necro campaign first can be annoying. you buy the package to play orcs, so it should begin with orcs.

anyway, as excited as i am about orcs, i can't wait to test out the new upgrades for each faction. and the new skill tree which will make ultimates more common.

deleb's triple ballista with flaming arrows is something i'd love to try, even if deleb is nerfed... too bad there aren't any more heroes with some good 'visual' specials...

Moragauth · Unread postby **Moragauth** » 18 Oct 2007, 12:15

Dull review. Could've said more.

Daystar · Unread postby **Daystar** » 18 Oct 2007, 14:03

I don't think he played HV or HOF, Which bothers me.

Elvin · Unread postby **Elvin** » 18 Oct 2007, 14:33

Not enough to realize the differences anyway.

MistWeaver · Unread postby **MistWeaver** » 18 Oct 2007, 14:36

>the game lost points because the author was forced

>to complete the Necropolis campaign before he could

>try the Orcs

Somebody needs to tell that dunce about "custom" maps, really .. very stupid complain.

Humakt · Unread postby **Humakt** » 18 Oct 2007, 15:32

What is this? First map in campaigns was all about orcs, and you played them. I thought that was quite enough.

rdeford · Unread postby **rdeford** » 18 Oct 2007, 17:27

I think that the author didn't say that there were no caravans, just that he wished there was more automation such as done with caravans. What he could be talking about is beyond me, however.

Muszka · Unread postby **Muszka** » 18 Oct 2007, 21:39

I Havn't played the ToE yet, but still I think that's not a good score for it. It would deserv a bit more, and the reasons for loosing points seem to me unfounded. I mean, they are 'just to throw there words and make a review'. That's an expension, not a new game.

But if something bothers me, that's the fact, that noone cares for the lost Behemots.

Moragauth · Unread postby **Moragauth** » 18 Oct 2007, 22:19

My complaint with TOE so far is some of the questionable rebalancing that has been done (e.g. LESS mana for the Matriarch? the Mistress is better than her as it is.) Nothing other than that, yet.

agni77 · Unread postby **agni77** » 19 Oct 2007, 05:10

anyone tried Deleb yet? She seems to deal FAR less damage now. I mean, her fireball effects are doing 1 damage per shot, even at level 5 or so.

rdeford · Unread postby **rdeford** » 19 Oct 2007, 17:41

Re Deleb: Havn't tried TOTE yet, but this is sad news indeed about Deleb. She is the main reason I play the Inferno faction. Such fun! And, now gone?

ThunderTitan · Unread postby **ThunderTitan** » 19 Oct 2007, 17:56

Oh man, no more overpowered inferno hero? yes, the game lost such a great draw...

winterfate · Unread postby **winterfate** » 19 Oct 2007, 19:17

agni77 wrote:anyone tried Deleb yet? She seems to deal FAR less damage now. I mean, her fireball effects are doing 1 damage per shot, even at level 5 or so.

1?
They really needed to weaken her...but that's a bit on the extreme side.

(Even including all of the Sylvan vs Inferno games I lost thanks to Deleb...

)

@rdeford: She's only fun if you can use her. Fighting against her is a pain in the nether regions.

(Especially when your Master Hunters get blasted into the Stone Age.

)

Cleanpea · Unread postby **Cleanpea** » 20 Oct 2007, 01:07

7.9 is a very good grade. Very good. Especially for a second expansion. And he do refer to previous heroes-games he has played. So why does he have caravan issues? Is it about automatication? I think he just finds them ineffective

Muszka · Unread postby **Muszka** » 20 Oct 2007, 02:54

I didn't said it deserved 10, but I don't agree the way, he made the grade.

And for me 7.9 means playable, not good, but that just a side of view.

The Heroes Round Table