First off, the score so far. I looked it up on Metacritic, and its 4 scores are drastically different: 86, 75, 65, and 50. I read through the individual reviews, to get a sense for why the reviews are so different. Apparently, the online multiplayer didn't work at all when the game
first went on sale, and in the week or so since it has only begun to be fixed.And in some games, this might not be a big deal. But all of the reviews I read said that the game basically does not have a story mode or campaign, meaning it is entirely multiplayer focused. And while they had only good things to say about the gameplay and the visuals, a multiplayer game with a broken multiplayer is a big problem.
So what's the deal?
The rumor is that GameStop broke the street date, which caused many of the problems. Stardock and Gas Powered Games, the publisher and developer, respectively, have to ship copies of the game to GameStop and other retailers early, so the stores have time to ready the game and set up for the opening day. But these retailers are given a "street date," the day they are allowed to start selling the game. These deals are not always followed; sometimes retailers start selling a game early for some reason.
So if GameStop got anxious, they may well have started selling the game early. And if the game went on sale a few days early, Gas Powered Games might not have had the multiplayer servers ready. Supposedly the only problems are in their servers and network, so the problems could/should be fixed soon, but this seriously hindered their launch.
So the different reviews come from the publications' differing approaches to a broken launch.IGN chose to review the game as it is, but took into account the great potential of the game, giving it a 7.5 out of 10. They may re-review the game once issues are addressed. Cheat Code Central had basically assumed in their review that the network would be patched, and gave it a nice 4.3/5.
Both of these reviews praised the game for its unique premise and its tight gameplay. The player chooses one of 8 Demigods, and fights with opposing Demigods for the right to be the next full God in the pantheon. The gameplay is tactical, focusing on your specific avatar, instead of on grand sweeping armies. Your Demigod is treated like an RPG character. It gains experience as it fights, it can receive new armor and items, and you can upgrade skill trees and give it better abilities as it grows. Standard fare for the RPG genre, but this is pretty sweet customization for an RTS. It gives players a reason to get invested in their unit.
They also praised the game for its action-focus. There is no base-building, no resource management, no troop creation. There is just pure action: strategic and tactical combat that the Cheat Code Central reviewer likened to an intensified real-time version of chess. The reviews of the gameplay and the combat sound extremely enticing, and I am hoping that my PC can handle the game when I get a chance to pick it up.
But in case the launch drama wasn't enough for you, 1UP.com gave the game a paltry C (which is translated to a 50/100 on Metacritic, bringing the game's average way down). I read through the 1Up review, to find their fault with the game. They not only factored in the problematic launch, but lambasted the developers for the event, fully blaming them.And the most frustrating part is the 1Up reviewer's opening line: "I've never been huge on real-time strategy games." If you don't like RTS games, why are you reviewing this!?!? Of course you won't like it!
So... take the reviews with a grain of salt. Stardock will most likely fix the network, and the game will be back on track, despite the potential early leak. Listen to the bountiful praise of IGN and Cheat Code Central, and ignore the RTS-hating reviewer. Demigod looks amazing, and nothing I've heard or seen yet has changed my mind.
- Scott
No comments:
Post a Comment