(repost kinda)

For anyone who was around when steam first came out that would of been an equal comparison. A ton of people were pissed when steam first came out (sound familiar). The switch from WAN to steam made me quit CS for a little while just out of pure frustration of not being able to play. I remember buying HL2 and not being able to play the game because of problems and look at the score that got on game spot. I would say not being able to play a game at all is far worse then only not being able to play multiplayer.

I have no idea why people are being so harsh on demigod it's not like stuff like this hasn't happened before and will happen again. It seems reviews these days have no standards anymore and two games that have equal problems get judged differently because of the developer and hype.

Small edit: I know 2 games shouldn't be judged exactly the same as they should be seen in their own light, but sometimes problems are over looked in one game only because the game has massive hype. What I mean is if say demigod right now was actually Half-Life 3 and it was a good game that the reviewer enjoyed ( which by his review of demigod he did) but had the same multiplayer connection problem I would bet any amount of money they would not of been so harsh on the score.

    Fair? No, I call it pre-mature as they didn't really focus on why there problems in connectivity. Gamespot fires off reviews as quickly as they can, also they don't go back to fix reveiws. A game is never perfect Day 1, ever, period. Every game I enjoy Gamespot always marks 6.5 or lower, and all the games I hate they rate 9.5 or 10. They just don't know how to review shit man.

Maybe you shouldn't have released a review copy so soon? They can only release what they are given,  and for the deadline they are set. Can they really recommend the game in its current state? Multiplayers always have this happen yes...and the players always have the same response.

At the present i can only say 6.5 is a fair score. this is a multiplayer game in which thus far the multiplayer barely works. You cannot blame the reviewers for reviewing the copy you sent them, when you sent it to them.

When the game works, its a clear 8-9 /10 game, but that is very far between, i spend hours trying to get just one 20 minute game to launch. I love this game, as i do all stardock games, but this one was released way too soon in my opinion, now you can blame that computer game shop, or pirates if you want but that doesnt change the game im playing, nor will it.

After owning all stardock's games for the last 6-7 years or so, i thought that with you guys you wouldnt do the whole, release it broken and patch up over time. Too many games do this now-adays and its not good.

Anyways, im sure most agree than in a month this will be a solid 8/10, but right now, its a 6, and only just.

I am extremely disappointed in the undeservedly low score that DG recieved from Gamespot. I was expressing my doubts throughout Beta about the final game, but in the end I think it was a smashing success.

Here's the thing that other people have expressed before me: yes, for the time being, perhaps DG deserves a low score. But this score is permanent, and the article delivers rather glowing praise for the actual game itself. The rewards blurbs on the side panel are also unfair, only acnkoledging its great voice acting and musical score.

If the score and review were to be revised upon the issuing of patches that fix the problems with Demigod, then I wouldn't object to the low score, as it would hopefully give GPG and Stardock even greater impetus to fix the problems. However, it is simply unfair to give DG such a low score when its problems are being addressed in such an expedient manner.

But I do have to ask this question: if P2P networking wasn't working properly, why didn't they switch over to a more conventional  host- or server-based networking scheme?

I rarely pay attention to a game review's raw scores. I read the review for key issuesand features shortly after release day, keywords. If it's a niche game, it rarely gets the praise of the more publicized mainstream games anyway. I've seen reviewers knock games for the very thing that a  fanbase enjoys most about a series.

If there is a major issue with the game that looks like it could be fixed in the future, I will visit the forums a month maybe two after release and see what's going on then.  Because of industry practices, DRM, bugs, server issues, features advertised on the box or website that never make it to the game, I almost never preorder anyway.

6.5 isn't a garbage score on gamespot, especially since there appears to be issues with the game. They almost always mark down a game that has a weak campaign and fewer maps than they think should be there. They're a lot more forgiving on multiplayer content then I tend to be. Re-reviews are ridiculous. They reviewed the game they had at the time of the review. Re-reviews will be the fan reviews and you can get them a gamefaqs, amazon (if it sells there), any number of places. There will be a fanboys who will give any game they like a 10/10 or they have some sort of love affair with Stardock going on and there will be people who will give is 1/10 because they had no clue as to what type of game they bought.

What's the real problem here? That some kid sees a 6.5 and dimisses the game based on that? Most of the veterans already know to check the forums and word of mouth is going to help sell a game beyond its release day anyway. If they fix the problems, word will get around, on gamespot and other places

I think you are wrong.  Games like WC3 and SC work flawlessly from day one for the most part.  This game/the impulse client are utter trash as far as ease of use and connectability are concerned.  A good idea only gets you so far, you need a game that works well to back up that good idea.  Hopefully they can pull something out of their behinds and get this thing on track but gamers don't generally put a game down for a month and come back.  A classic must-have game isn't made by a good idea.  It is made by a good game.

the problem with any blizard game being siad it works great at release is that blizzard games graphics and codes are so simple most of them can be run on a crayola box, blizzard creates games with 4 years ago in mind. also blizzard as an independantly wealthy company and can not be rushed, no parent company breathing down their necks yelling at them to hurry hurry hurry!!,  thus they can afford the extra 6 months that would bankerupt most game companies.

also previous to blizzard making thier big money from SC and diablo2 their servers were complete and utter crap, SC was barely playable online for about a month, if you are thinking to disagree with me you are simply dissillusiond, and they were using the exact same system as one of their previous game (diablo) which never properly ran online at any point.

Typically multiplayer games should be played more before you rate them. You notice in the review that he says the game is good, but only complains about the multiplayer connectivity issues (which I assume will be fixed). 

Anyway this doesn't deter me from buying this game. 

Yes, I know games are not as simple as ordering a pizza. My point was Demigod has unluckly failed to give one of the aspects fully at the start. The matter of consuming at once doesn't give an argument. Yeah, they will fix (fixed) it later on, I know, but that doesn't change the fact that everthing was not there from the start. I recall writing that its diffferent for a game because of patches and all and that complete game is hard to define. So I used pizza as a example, which I think 'complete' is easier to imagine, to point that it not something you don't usually allow. (I don't know why I chose pizza but probably caz I ordered it few days ago.) 

In your case, I would have organized it so a fixed number of people will join, and have some extras just incase its not enough. There is no 'I've done this before so its going to be the same', it's more true for games becasue there are no sencond initial release for a same game. Preparation, estimation, or what ever you want to call is a MUST thing to do. 180k pirate access? was there really nothing you could do about that? (budget is not limitless so I can see there is limitation but, everyone is faced with it all the time) Still, I contradict myself a bit but I would complain if something like that happens but after all I would NEVER say that my resposibilities on it is 0%.

I'm not saying Stardock is all to blame but isn't it fair to say they have some responisbility on it too? 

I don't mean to post the same thing twice, but there are 2 threads about the GS review.

As I mentioned in my other post, Kevin from GS is notorious for giving games undeserving scores. If you want accurate reviews you need to go to indy review sites, as they don't depend on publishers' advertising money to pay their bills.

SceneGamer have a good review that I think sums up the game well.

http://www.scenegamer.com/featured/pc-review-demigod/

Again, apologises for posting this twice.

I am reviewing the game for several magazines in the UK and I'll be giving the game a higher score than 6.5, but right now, I'm hovering around 7.0 to 7.5 mark.

I think the game will suffer from longevity issues due to the rather shallow maps and gameplay. It's great fun at first, but I don't know how long we'll want to keep playing - some of the maps are far less fun than others.

I've really enjoyed playing the game, but the skill system is actually quite limited, and the lack of maps brings the game down a few points and prevents it from being a classic. There seems to be very little in the way of different play styles for each demigod, and it all feels rather linear.

I hope the developers address these issues and give us more interesting demigods, right now it feels like Rook is the central character and the others pale in imagination and creativity. There also seems to be some balance issues...

In the short term, the game has a lot to offer and I'll be playing it regularly over the next week to be absolutely certain I'm giving the game the benefit of lots of play time.

Limited?  What?  Pretty much all generals have harcoded 2 builds to begin with.  Torchbearer also has 2 different elements, and there's also the hybrid builds, and the rest also still have at least a couple ways of building.  For generals, there's also the question of whether or not to spend gold on Idols or equipment first.

Take Rook for example.  I don't even bother with the popular hammer and ball trees and instead do almost all my damage passively via auto weapons, attack power buff, towers, and tower life drain.  I can't kill demigods really, but I completel wreck their base.