GameSpot Review Posted Online
 

GameSpot put their review of Space Empires V up on their site. Here is the link:

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/...sv/review.html

I was really hoping GameSpot would wait another month before reviewing the game. As has been said before, it is unfortunate that the game had to be released before these bugs could be ironed out. It may make it more difficult to convince new folks how truly awesome the game is. I'm occasionally tearing my hear out when I encounter a bug. But I've already gotten 100+ hour of fun gameplay. So, I'm not complaining much. It's quite cool to email a new bug to Malfador and then see that bug addressed by the most recent version.

Re: GameSpot Review Posted Online
 

That was a great review. I think it laid things out for people exaclty the way it is. I may read more of gamespots reviews.

Re: GameSpot Review Posted Online
 

I agree, it was a very fair review.

Re: GameSpot Review Posted Online
 

Stability: Stable

haha. I really don't want to know what they call unstable. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif Especially when their tag line is "riddled by bugs and issues, tough to recommend".

Their actual score is kind of weird. Gameplay rated the same as graphics and sound?

Re: GameSpot Review Posted Online
 

They put some time into the review and I agree that it is very fair. I wish they would have waited until next week though. With the new patch coming out on Monday it would have been better to wait. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/frown.gif Oh well, we did warn them this would happen. 6.6 is not a bad rating, it could have been a hell of a lot better though.

They were very honest and up front about the support that Aaron puts into his games.

Re: GameSpot Review Posted Online
 

I would think that this would be a major bug. I don't believe that it has either been reported yet or fixed.

Re: GameSpot Review Posted Online
 

Its been reported, but not fixed (he did some changes to happyness, but not THAT part of happyness..)

Re: GameSpot Review Posted Online
 

Why the hell SFI didn't wait another few months before releasing the game is beyond belief.The game would have got 8+/10 reviews and sold a lot more.

Re: GameSpot Review Posted Online
 

Since when is a score of 6.6 ever good? A good number would be 7.5 or 8.0. Anything less is real bad. That is like the death sentence. I think gamespot was being polite considering this was developed by one person. When you release a game it needs to play out of the box. You may have a few bugs but the game play should be solid. In it's current relase it just sux.

This game really needed a larger staff to help develope. Not to mention features added that have been requested for a very long time. I honestly feel very let down by this release. I've been looking forward to this for some time and at this point I think GalCiv2 is probably calling now. (I've been holding off for a while) There are so many items wrong with this release I just don't know where to begin. Well my gripes with the game are with bad ground combat concept, problems with weapon design/balance, lack of unique ruin tech, no roaming monsters/pirates, etc. I know the "mods will correct this responce".

By the way Master of Orion 3 beats out SEV by a score of 6.7 Feb 2003 Gamespot. This has to be the worst release of this type of game ever. Even Birth of the Federation beats it by a score of 7.9. I hope Aaron is taking notes on this. I really would like this game to succeed.

Re: GameSpot Review Posted Online
 

The bugs were the main reason for the 6.6 fair review that GS gave the game. They were VERY fair to the game in the review.

Re: GameSpot Review Posted Online
 

It boils down to money most of the time. Aaron needs to pay his bills and SE4, DO, and Starfury are both at the end of their product lives.

Re: GameSpot Review Posted Online
 

Sadly you are right. But like always when a product like this is rushed out the door you lose more future sales. Just review the MOO3 saga as a good example of lack of forsite. That game could have made big bucks but they dropped the ball with bugs.

Re: GameSpot Review Posted Online
 

I totally think they should have let the fanatics buy it early online, and do the full retail push once it had been patched up.

Re: GameSpot Review Posted Online
 

That would have been the ideal thing to have done. That way the total fan boys could report the bugs so that the official retail version was shipped in a far better state than the it was. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/frown.gif Hindsight.... is always 20/20. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/frown.gif

Re: GameSpot Review Posted Online
 

However unlike MOO3, SE V won't go down in history as the largest POS game ever released. Unlike Moo3, SE V will continue to be improved by its developer and publisher. And unlike MOO3, it wasn't released as an as is alpha version after the development team had been fired just so the publisher could recoup some of the development costs at the expense of the fans.

MOO3 was indeed the best example of screwing the fans that I have ever seen, even more so than what VUG did to the Tribes fans.

Re: GameSpot Review Posted Online
 

I think 6.6 is a pretty good review for the game in it's current state. It would have been nice if they hadn't noticed the game for a couple more weeks so that the most glaring bugs could have been ironed out, but on the other hand, Aaron does have to eat.
Still, at least they mentioned Aaron's fantastic track record for patching, and given that 4X games are still a niche market, I wouldn't be surprised if that review ended up generating a few sales. After all, if you're starved for turn based 4X games, and someone tells you, "It ain't great now, but it will be soon," aren't you likely to if not buy it right away, put it on your wishlist for a few months time?
In my experience, those who whine endlessly about bugs ruining a game tend to be FPS twitch-kiddies. TBS grongards have a bit more patience by definition. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Re: GameSpot Review Posted Online
 

What I like is that they at least made a small attempt, albeit one that can be easily over come, to secure the game from piracy. The CD key is a great addition and long long over due. Like I said though, too bad it can be very very easily over come. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/frown.gif

Re: GameSpot Review Posted Online
 

I second that motion!

I purchased the game knowing there were bugs. I purchased it because I knew Aaron would fix the bugs and I knew I could finally make the mod I have been working on for years. Had Aaron let it out to us fanatics the bugs would have been caught and the mods developed. Once it hit retail there would have been so many choices for new and old players a review by GS (or anyone else) would have been strong and boosted the sales to the top of the 4X genre.

As you said Atrocities; hindsight…

Re: GameSpot Review Posted Online
 

Anyone else notice that the screenshot with a caption about research is actually a screenshot of intel focus areas? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/stupid.gif

Re: GameSpot Review Posted Online
 

Bugs are just one part of the story. They could have waited for another bugfix before the review, but OTOH strategy first (or whoever else was responsible) could have done the same before launching it.

BUT... there is the other part of story that is barely mentioned here: Artificial Intelligence; Talking about the stock game: This has never been changed in SEIV from the beginning til today. SE4 AI has been weak and it will remain weak. Bugs can be ironed out, but a weak AI is the really bad part of this review especially because it is about a (mainly) singleplayer strategy game. GalCiv II for comparison: "the best ai in strategy gaming" - from start.

Re: GameSpot Review Posted Online
 

Personally, I see SE as an entirely multi-player game. Different strokes for different folks. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: GameSpot Review Posted Online
 

The se multiplayer base is so small and se is not an easy game to multiplay. Although I'm hoping the pbw app is finished soon.

Re: GameSpot Review Posted Online
 

Right, this was a single(players) opinion. Plus, I really hope that the AI will be improved also this time. If so, it might be a better option (for singleplayers) than GalCiv, unless players do like the simplified choices they have regarding ship design, research, diplomacy etc.

PS: I am going to wait until February/March next year. GalCiv II plans to launch an Addon in this timeframe. Let's see how things have changed until then.

Re: GameSpot Review Posted Online
 

pujal said:
The se multiplayer base is so small...

It's always seemed large enough to me, with plenty of diversity of opponents. Who cares if there aren't 1 million people playing it? It's better this way, as you don't have all the kiddies mucking everything up... Plus, it's a lot more intimate and it's easier to get to know the other players. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

...and se is not an easy game to multiplay.

Not sure what you mean by this; it seemed really easy to get into to me when I started 4-5 years ago.

Re: GameSpot Review Posted Online
 

couldn't agree more. I've said it before on the forum.. moo3 is a fun game with the patches and mods that fix the basic bugs. It would be so much better if the developers could actually fix all the problems. Instead someone gave up on it =/

Re: GameSpot Review Posted Online
 

It was a shame as the game had so much potential one just has to wonder what in the hell went wrong with MOO3? So many years of development, so much money and we end up with what we got. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/frown.gif What went wrong with MOO3?

Re: GameSpot Review Posted Online
 

Hindsight? I was saying that years ago.

Re: GameSpot Review Posted Online
 

Yes, yes you have been. My mistake. I wish they would have listened to you SJ. God only knows that it could have been a great new pioneering method of game development and publication. Great inovative ideas are often viewed with distane and slow to take root.

There is hopefully always an SE VI to think about.

Re: GameSpot Review Posted Online
 

That would be a nice compromise between a premature release and a public beta - the premature release is very buggy, but a public beta would be difficult to manage by such a small company. The fanatics would easily work together (as they've done for years on the forum) to avoid repeats and submit more intelligent bug reports, allowing Aaron to scrutinize a larger portion of them. SJ has an excellent point here - the fanatics can be used not only as modders and beta testers, but also as an elite squad of beta testers to focus Aaron's attention just prior to the full release. The only drawback I see here is that you're putting a lot of power into fewer hands, which carries its own concerns (not that any of the fanatics on this forum would intentionally abuse such a power, but speaking from the age old argument that absolute power corrupts absolutely).

Hopefully Aaron will tap into this unrealized potential for SEVI.

*lightbulb* I better get my post count up!!!!

Re: GameSpot Review Posted Online
 

It would actually be the opposite...
Going from the "power" in a small number of beta testers, to spreading that influence over the wider community.

There are far more people who would buy SE5 early than were chosen as beta testers.

Re: GameSpot Review Posted Online
 

Hmm, give anyone that pre-orders a game the option to help work out bugs before the official release. Let's see, that would make the beta testers actually alpha testers and early buyers actually beta testers who paid for the privledge.

That development model would be all kinds of cool!

Re: GameSpot Review Posted Online
 

Didn't GalCiv2 use that model? Looks like it worked out pretty well for them...

Re: GameSpot Review Posted Online
 

They no longer are in business. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/frown.gif

Re: GameSpot Review Posted Online
 

Zuh? Stardock is alive and well.

Re: GameSpot Review Posted Online
 

and recently started selling Space Rangers 2.

Good company Stardock. Brad's a dick to the community though. Muwhahahaha.

Re: GameSpot Review Posted Online
 

GT Interactive and Digital Reality are no longer in business. GT Interactive is part of Atari I think, but haven't seen a title from them in years.

EDIT:
My fault, I misread the post. I was thinking of Galatic Imperium 2 and not Galatic Civilizations 2. My bad.

Re: GameSpot Review Posted Online
 

I'll cut you, man! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Re: GameSpot Review Posted Online
 

Hey! Nice to see you around these parts! You know, I'm kinda curious how you and Aaron Hall think of each other... have you ever talked with him before? He's going to be appearing in an IRC chat session in a couple hours, you know... he might be pleasantly surprised to see a fellow game designer show up! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Re: GameSpot Review Posted Online
 

Well I'll be damned. Look who it is.

Re: GameSpot Review Posted Online
 

I logged on expecting to see dozens of posts telling me what an idiot I am for writing a review like that - glad to see that the fans of the game (and I am one of them) here are more mature than on most fan forums.

That was a tough review to write, and the policy at the places I write (CGW-which is now GFW, Gamespot, etc.) is to review the game out of the box. Which was version 1.0 They did allow me to mention the patch at the time (1.08.) I rewrote that thing 3 or 4 times trying to be completely fair and also such that people can make an informed decision. Some people will decide the depth is enough that they can put up with the bugs and trust the developer will eventually fix them. And you just can't give the game a higher score because the developer has always fixed them in the past - you have to review what you have on your PC, not what it could be.

I still have SEV on my system (along with Gal Civ II) and I'm looking forward to the mods, patches, etc. But I do think that developers ultimately kill themselves by releasing games too early. I don't believe the income from the early buyers can make up for the lost income from people who read negative reviews or posts on general gaming forums or even word of mouth.

FWIW

(Edit) - for the person who noted the incorrect caption, thanks for the heads up - it appears they mis-matched my captions with the wrong screens shots for all of them. I'll get them to change that.

Re: GameSpot Review Posted Online
 

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif It is extremely rewarding to read a solid and honest review of a game. You did a great service by being fair and honest and that I think is why most of use endorse it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif I have to admit that I was a bit worried about what was going to be said, but was very relieved after reading the review. It was spot on.

Re: GameSpot Review Posted Online
 

IMO this is a very accurate and fair rewiew of the game Jeff.

Re: GameSpot Review Posted Online
 

I thought your review was accurate and generous. You could have been much harsher and even though we fans may not know all the restrictions you face writing a review I think we can at least guess at the general structure. As Atrocities said it was very fair and most of all honest. I would rather read an honest review that I can respect than one that is too flowery or otherwise obviously sugar coated.

Re: GameSpot Review Posted Online
 

Indeed, a fair and good review. I hope you drop in to the forum more often in the future!