GameSpot Gives Tribes a 5.5

[Pitsu]

So what exactly is your point here?

From you own words:

That means besically that the interests of players and map makers are differing anway: the players want all "balance issues" of the game fixed which might result in drastic game changes. The mapmakers want to have a stable game to be able to make a map without the necessity to cintinually patch it or even have to start over.

It should be clear that and expansion that players rate with 10 out of 10, mapmakers may see it only as 1 out of 10. And it kind of annoys when "players" come to tell that mapmaking is not important anyway and the score should be 10 not 5.5. Although, mapmakers problems curently are not that much the balance changes which you refer to, but simply the tools that are given to them. It is like you want to dig a hole, but are given an excavator, which you cannot drive instead of a spade.

As long as major parts of the game are still changed the maps are not for eternity anyway/have to be patched to still be playable.

This reminds me again Ururam whose opinion was "it is a true shame for the mapmaker if his/her release is not the final version and needs any updating later." Not that I agree, and not that I am against balance changes, but tell me why is Academy type towns until 1.4(?) patch coded as town type 2 and after that as town type 5 (or whatever it was). Is that a balance change?

[Jolly Joker]

The game and the editor are two completely different things. The main difference is that a bad game with a good editor is still a bad game while a good game with a bad editor is still a good game.
In case a the editor is wasted because no one wants to play it, so the good editor is irrelevant.
In case b the editor question arises only because the game is good, so there is a "market" for maps. NOW, and only now the editor comes into focus because
THE EDITOR IS THE MEANS, NOT THE PURPOSE!
In this special case the editor is neither streamlined nor optimized.
Yes, it could be better.
So PROVIDED THE GAME IS WORTH IT it leaves something to desire.

A game rated 5.5 is clearly NOT worth it. Since the Editor wasn't even mentioned in the review the editor question is IRRELEVANT (because no one will play or buy it and therefore who needs the editor).

That means, the question of the editor becomes only relevant if the game is rated, well, let's say 7.5. That would mean it's pretty decent and addon. Starting from there you could deduct something for the fact that the editor leaves something to be desired (and that's true for the preset and campaign editor as well). Note that you can deduct more, the better the game rating is.

So I'd think that starting with a rating of 7.5 you might deduct up to 0.5 for the editor(s) going up to a full point or so if the game was a 10 ending at 9.

In other words: It would make sense to discuss the editor if the rating was HIGH (does it deserve the high rating?). I does make no sense to discuss it, if the rating is low (and 5.5 is abysmal) IF THE EDITOR WASN'T EVEN MENTIONED.
The editor comes into play only if you agree that the rating is too low for the game.

[innokenti]

I have to say, playing TotE has made me come back to Heroes 5 after I was disappointed by the original version. It has, since I've played it, made it like Heroes once again to me and I feel comfortable with old and new - something I didn't get in either vanilla or HoF.

So I'd say well done at last to Nival!

Sadly the reviewer seems... not to be too clued up.

[Pitsu]

I agree that with only this particular review in mind, editor may be irrelevant. But I would not limit my opinions with this (not too brilliant) review and am trying to see the things wider. If I would say that that 5.5 is a fair score, I do not necessarily mean that it is fair on the same reasons given by Gamespot. (I haven't played ToTE enough to will to grade it)

Whether game and editor and lets take also random map generator are one or three different things can be argued. RMG is perhaps the more obvious part of game "goodness". I would say that Diablo and Civilization success is largely due to random map generation, which is an internal part of the game itself. To say that HoMM editor is not a part of the game and comes relevant only when the game itself is good, means also that a single map should be enough to judge H5 quality and there is no elementary need for more than one layout. Although some maps are well replayable I do not think that is fully true. In our case, exe files for the editor, RMG and game may be separate, but it is hard for me to consider the game complete without an editor or good RMG.

[Jolly Joker]

Whether game and editor and lets take also random map generator are one or three different things can be argued. RMG is perhaps the more obvious part of game "goodness". I would say that Diablo and Civilization success is largely due to random map generation, which is an internal part of the game itself.

RMG has not been mentioned either and is yet another new issue. Did you check it in ToE already?

To say that HoMM editor is not a part of the game and comes relevant only when the game itself is good, means also that a single map should be enough to judge H5 quality and there is no elementary need for more than one layout.

Huh? I can't follow you. It means, if anything, that the maps provided with the game should be enough to judge quality. Why one layout?

[Pitsu]

RMG has not been mentioned either and is yet another new issue. Did you check it in ToE already?

To have TotE I should buy RAM first. Dunno when that is going to happen. I know TotE only from demo and therefore I do not argue whether 5.5 is fair or not, but only whether map editor is important or not. It would be interesting to see how HoF and TotE and their patches change the editor though. (To see whether a third party fan made util could be better )

Huh? I can't follow you. It means, if anything, that the maps provided with the game should be enough to judge quality. Why one layout?

OK, you can score here. Maps made by developers do count.

[Muszka]

But why RMG is so important, beside the fact that a beginner->mediocre player plays randomly generated maps, or a multiplayers who want a quick play. I havn't played randomly generated maps just in the first two three years of HoMM play, that was about 4 years ago.

I agree that some ppl may find it interesting, even I know one or two, who once in a while play such a map.

But still for me RMG is equal with desperation.

[rdeford]

=======quote=======

...but tell me why is Academy type towns until 1.4(?) patch coded as town type 2 and after that as town type 5 (or whatever it was). Is that a balance change?



=======response====

We may be off topic with this "sub-thread" about the editor, but I think it is valid point to discuss, and the discussion is happening here, so I continue it here. Sorry Jeff.



Pitsu is raising the one point that is NOT merely personal opinion. Ubival made a fundamental error by making changes in a patch that caused existing maps to stop functioning. This type of error indicates a profound ineptness somewhere in the marketing/developing chain. My personal hope is that TOTE, being the third try, is the charm. That is to say, I hope that, since "they" have had this long to get things stable, we have seen an end to this foolishness. I hope Pitsu buys his RAM and buys TOTE and proves my hope is justified. This community needs people like Pitsu in it and making contributions.



Jeff is also making a valid point when he says that the H5 editor bottleneck to fan-created maps may make a significant contribution to the demise of H5. Any experienced HOMM player can zip through the company-provided campaigns and maps in a few weekends. Without good fan-made maps, that's it for most players. Saying that the game will die out in a year is being generous. I think that's why Jeff keeps hoping on his soapbox. He cares about HOMM, and he had high hopes for H5. So did I. Heck, my kids grew up playing H2 -- H3 with me and the maps I mad for them. I may be sentimental to the point of fault, but I felt like something wonderful died when 3D0 and NWC crashed. Again, this community needs people like Jeff in and making contributions.



And, finally, I and a few others, have created some H5 maps that are not merely kill-all, or find-grail trivial games, so it is possible to do in H5. Creating these maps with the H5 editor took an inordinate amount of time and effort. And, despite that, I am creating more. Why? For one thing, I LIKE creating HOMM maps and feel it to be a creative outlet for me. But, also, I like this community and I have an emotional attachment to HOMM that is bordering on the irrational so do not ask me to defend it. Basically, I greatly desire H5 to endure and sell well enough for there to be an H6. And, I personally feel that that is not going to happen without fan-made maps. So I suffer the H5 editor and continue using it. Oh, and the review didn't mention the editor or the RMG because he did a shallow review, not because they are unimportant.
Edited on Tue, Oct 23 2007, 12:19 by rdeford

[Jolly Joker]

All nice and valid, but I still don't see what it has to do with the issue of the gamespot review, when the editor is not even mentioned there AND this point is seemingly raised to justify the rating.
Because some say, no matter how silly the review, the bottom line is right because of the editor.

[Muszka]

@rdeford

sentimental or not, I cannot imagine my life without heroes, be it anykind of it. I really don't want to think of the fact that it can die out.

[PhoenixReborn]

Concerning the editor I would like to thank Rdeford for posting in the map editor improvements thread in the mapmaking guild.

I am all for improving it and making it easier to use so I can have more great maps to play.

There are many styles of maps available from kill 'em all to rpg/story and the unique category EvilP maps!

Concerning the review can anyone honestly say that HoF is better than ToE? It just doesn't make any sense.

[Omega_Destroyer]

But Hammers of Fate has Freyda's quality voice work, delivered with the potency of a sedated mantatee.

"Lazlooooo..."

[rdeford]

Oops, sorry Pitsu for spelling your name Pitsue. Drat! I hate it when I do that!



Edit: I went back in and fixed the spelling of the name with an edit.
Edited on Tue, Oct 23 2007, 12:21 by rdeford

[arturchix]

I just noticed that Gamespot says the average score for Tribes from other critics is 6.7 out of 10. They say it's taken from 4 reviews at Gamerankings. If we head there, you can see just two reviews - IGN's and Gamespot's, which makes an average of 6.7. Liars, justifying their own poor score.

[Metathron]

Obviously the 4 reviews is just a mistake.

[arturchix]

That's not my point - the Gamespot score is also included in the other critics average score and since there's only IGN who gave Tribes 7.9, the average score is 6.7. Like it's not enough they gave the game 5.5.

[Omega_Destroyer]

This reminds me of the controversy with 1up.com and their review of Neverwinter Nights 2.

[Grumpy Old Wizard]

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.

Use heroe chains to move troops. Also, there is summon creatures and town portal. Some factions can also get mentoring fairly easily now for creating secondary heroes easily.

You can "play fast" even on heroic difficulty if you learn how to develop your heroe properly and use your troops effectively.

GOW

[Muszka]

@ArchangelGabriel (2007-10-21/07:43)

rewoked by GOW

(about childish reasons and toughness)

I always liked playing on the edge, tough fights, even with many loads, to beat twice the armies I had or even biggers.

If I faild a map after 30-40 loads, I just let it sleep a while, then I played again. And not even after that, not for a moment I heven't thought, that difficulty can ruin a good game, contrarly it will make it better, it will turn it into a challenge, 'cos that is the means of any game, the challenge of it.

So that's why I think the reasons childish.



If someone still finds the game too difficult, and don't wants to play, or just don't like it, I can understand them. But the difficulty will never frighten me away. If it does so I will be capable no more of playing and I hope even than I won't say about HoMM that isn't worth playing or whatsoever.

[Moragauth]

The ultimate judge of the game is whether it appeals to its intended consumers. The Gamespot reviewer is but one of them (which is why I put little stock in what game reviewers say; their tastes and mine rarely coincide.) Gamespot's own records indicate most gamers on their site, who voted, like the game. Where Ubi did perform poorly is in not marketing the game. If its aim was to make an elite product for a small fanbase, again it failed. But the game is still, IMO, good and provided it raises enough revenue to cover costs and it thus has enough satisfied consumers, it is not a total failure. Given that it improves on several aspects of the original game, I would say it's a mild success.