unicorn_ unicorn_

New Review: Adrenaline Vault gives GalCiv only 3.5/5 !

▼

New Review: Adrenaline Vault gives GalCiv only 3.5/5 !

from Stardock Forums
Adrenaline Vault has now posted their review of GalCiv, presently to be found at:


They only give the game 3.5/5 in overall grade, and among their categories, especially 'Gameplay' (3.5/5) and 'Intelligence & Difficulty' (2/5) stand out to me as surprisingly and undeservedly low.

Some quotes from the review:
(In the 'Intelligence & Difficulty section, the AI more or less gets straight out accused of cheating)
"As a reviewer, it is seldom prudent to accuse the AI of a game of cheating; I will say, however, that the alien races of Galactic Civilizations seem to be fairly adroit at making something out of nothing [...] Because of these seemingly free constructor units, AI races are better able to exploit the resources of the galaxy"

And from their summary:
"As a result of its timing, Galactic Civilizations is in the rare position of being able to capitalize on the failings of Master of Orion 3. Unfortunately, out of the box, it is hard to recommend due to its own failings — although it is equally hard not to be optimistic about its potential given both current and future patches, as Stardock has a strong record of staying committed to their projects."

All in all, I am surprised at such a comparatively negative review from Avault.

/unic
8,175 views 134 replies
Reply #126 from Stardock Forums Top
Avault usually though, is very dead on with their reviews. They don't put out nearly as many, but when they do, they are excellent. This reviewer in particular imo, is just not a very good one.

I stil hold to my theory that he got the game.. and put very little time into it. That is what it seems like to me. People here know more about the game than him. How else can you explan not only errors in the intial review, but then mistakes in the *corrected* version.

fleabitfox
Reply #127 from Stardock Forums Top
"Sorry Huz, but Avault doesn't work that way."

and

"Count the ads. I count 8."

Of course they work that way. Do I think that the reviewer thought "Ohh they did not pay enough time for a hatchet job?" No I do not think it works that way.

However, do I think that if StarDock had paid for a lot of advertising that a different, more "experienced" reviewer would have been assigned? Yes.

Do I think that if StarDock had paid a lot in advertising that a review with factual errors and/or was overly critical would have been pulled, yes. Case in point: Tom Chick's EXCELLENT review of Moo3 which was pulled (from which website I am not sure) due to the fact that it was, imo, too honest.

http://www.quartertothree.com/reviews/moo3/moo3-1.shtml
Offworld Trading Company
Reply #128 from Stardock Forums Top
"However, do I think that if StarDock had paid for a lot of advertising that a different, more "experienced" reviewer would have been assigned? Yes."

Ok, you can certainly think that, and most gamers familiar with the way MOST review sites work would agree. But I REALLY think you're wrong and that you're somewhat underestimating the integrity of Avault.

Again, I'm not in any way defending THAT review.
Reply #129 from Stardock Forums Top
The thread the wouldn't die. Ack! Look at that, I bumped it.

(Start looking over my shoulder for Midnight_Louie and JavaScout wielding large trout as weapons) LOL

~SDC~
Reply #130 from Stardock Forums Top
I've read rapidly this review from Avault but I think that simply seeing "AI is cheating" and "AI is producing many improvements/turn" is enough to demonstrate to any newcomer that the review is INCREDIBLY superficial and/or flawed.

Not even a need to look at all the secundary arguments, it is showing alot when this is said about GalCiv. So anyone answering that the review is ok should simply be answered "Forgetting all the secundary arguments, these two factors show how it is superficial and flawed."

Oh my gosh.... what are these two doing with their trouts!?! Noooooooooooooooo........!!!!!
Reply #131 from Stardock Forums Top
remember, reviewers just offer their own opinions of the game....opinions are like brains: almost everybody has one. the fact that he ranked Heroes 4 that high should tell you something. the point is, one or two lower scoring reviews wont mean that much compared to the dozens of good scores.
Reply #133 from Stardock Forums Top
"i think we all need to fill the clueless reviewer and his editor's inbox with ass spackle."

Um, this thread is over a week old, and the review has since been altered. I think the issue is dead, and it would be better for it to stay that way.

- Ash

~SDC~