GameSpot Gives Tribes a 5.5

[jeff]

such people could review the 7 wonders of the world and find them repetitive... "...it's a great pyramid, I don't know how they've built the thing but you know the stone wasn't the right color, looks very stony, the texture is tedious, so I'll give it a 3.6"

Oh please we have to resort to comparing the wonders of the world to a review of Heroes. Talk about a mismatch. Now as TT said if it was difficult because of the AI then they would be out of line, but (I don't own it yet) as I have been able to deduce from the reports of the game, the AI is not the cause of it being difficult. So get over it, it's their opinion and one I do not know if I agree with or not and could not know until I actually play it. 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. Now having said that I still may acquire it if my daughters buy it for Christmas.

[Crosis]

>>> The review is like giving 5.5 to Star Wars digitally Mastered and scenes added version



I would have. The added scenes were crap. But in my limited experience with the expansion, there's no way they could possibly give it a lower grade than 7 unless they are total morons.



>>> Quote from review: "For example, the new bloodeyed cyclops plays much like the Sylvan treant"



As I said: total morons. Can treants throw goblins at people?

[Kalah]

Treants can throw whatever they want at whoever they want

[jeff]

Besides it is not unusual for a sequel to get a lower rating than the original, so I don't know what all the fuss is about.

[Omega_Destroyer]

Who cares what Gamespot thinks or any reviewer for that matter? If I constantly followed reviews, I would have missed out on a lot of great games like Tribes of the East, Earth Defense Force, and Blue Dragon.

[jeff]

On the other hand they prevented me from buying dogs like Master of Orion 3 and Warlords IV (ok IV was not a dog but a disappointment).

[PhoenixReborn]

Besides it is not unusual for a sequel to get a lower rating than the original, so I don't know what all the fuss is about.

The fuss is about this specific instance.

3.0 is much better than 1.0 and even than 1.5. This is a qualitative assessment from myself who has been here since the start.

It deserves a higher score than the original, not a lower one.

Campaign is only one part of the equation. The skirmish maps have been improved.

[jeff]

The fuss is about this specific instance.

3.0 is much better than 1.0 and even than 1.5. This is a qualitative assessment from myself who has been here since the start.

It deserves a higher score than the original, not a lower one.

Campaign is only one part of the equation. The skirmish maps have been improved.

That might be, but many of us felt that an 8.whatever was far too high for the original H-V, so it all works out in the end. Maybe 5.5 is right for tribes, I can't rally say, but if you give H-V a 5.0, then tribes is better. They have never addressed what I felt doomed H-V to the dumper, it's very user unfriendly map editor. I own H-V and HOF but neither is currently installed on my computer and I have no desire to put them back on, but that would change with a much improved editor.

[grimogre]

I email Gamespot and told them to bump Tribes of the East to 8.I predict that the score will change to an 8.

[JessieLC]

Usually lately when the reviewers hate a Game or Movie or give something a thumbs down, i usually like it!! the only Games lately that have been getting HUGE scores are the WWII types, Bioshock, Crysis and World of Warcraft, go figure!!!!!!!!!! Fantasy turn based stategy has been taking areal hit in gaming lately!!!! its all about the stupid consoles.........I think it great that the Wii is kicking butt!!!!!!!!

[jeff]

The fact is it seems turn based anything are hated by many of the reviewers, so whether you like H-V or not it is starting with that handicap. I guess to be good in their eyes your game icon has to be seconds from death the whole time or the game is not worth your time.

[cactusfiesta]

Seriously guys, don't sweat the review. This is Gamespot we're talking about. They only ever give top scores to Xbox 360 shooters like Bioshock and are legendary for hating vast genres of games. It's almost as if giving low scores (either in the comparative of absolute sense) is "their thing". This is just another instance and no one should think much of it.

[SirGalrim]

Alright. So I'll be sure to stay away from this one. Fits with my plans anyway. I have neither desire or time to play more H5.

[maltz]

> So, say hello to trial and error, not to mention the frequent reloading of saves.



What? You guys don't do it at all? I thought that's the fun of the game (on heroic).

[herorocks]

Let us first see this guy's reason to give such a low score, as shown in the link above, where he lists the bad things about TOE:

1. "Identical in style and tone to the original Heroes V and its first expansion", is this something we expect to see for an add-on game?

2. "Extremely difficult", what? you think difficult is a bad thing? This is a turn-based strategy game for which you need to use your brain. If it's easy for any people, do you think it's a virtue? It's ridiculous.

3. "New features such as sacrificial altars are of questionable value.", so , what question? I'm not sure what this guy is talking about.



I'm not an expert in Heroes, but let me state my opinions about "difficulty". I played Heroes serials only at one difficulty level, the highest. As I said, I'm not an expert. But never had any problem playing through the game, but I admitted there were numerous S/Ls. Just as maltz pointed out, this is only fun! If you don't want to use you brain and manage to play through, stay away from the game, it's not suitable for you. But, don't post your reviews, it's bull****!



I can accept other criticism like bad storyline, but don't blame difficulty.
Edited on Sun, Oct 21 2007, 09:09 by Angelspit

[MistWeaver]

>So H5 1.0 gets 8.2
>TotE 3.0 gets 5.5.
>I didn't realize version 1.0 was so great compared to TotE.

What a hell are you ppl talking about ? The question is not which version is better, the question is how good is this particular box. From your logic any addon should get more than original.
So its like if H5 1.0 gets 8.2, then if Nival will release a new addon with some bugs fixes, 2 neutral creatures and 3 new maps, such kind of "addon" should get minimum 8.3 ? And why not, its better right ?

[PhoenixReborn]

I don't understand what is so confusing Mistweaver.

HoF was not a great add-on, it didn't add much content and hardly any maps.

ToE on the other hand is much better.

The numbers don't matter, ToE is a qualitative step up over previous versions, especially if you don't have previous versions (h5 and hof).

[Muszka]

I was a bit angry, like anybody else here, but after a moment of thinking I realized, that he wrote a bad review just because his girl kicked his butt because of his 'low' performance in the bad, or somethin like.

[Muszka]

Seriously, when IGN posted their review it was the same sh!t only with fewer words. But still lower score (7.9). I've said even than that TotE should deserve better, but numbers and scores are subjective.

The reason of angryness are the unfounded and childish reasons. (just like in the IGN's case)

[MistWeaver]

>I don't understand what is so
>confusing Mistweaver.

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.