You get these "I paid money for it I am gonna defend this game to the death" people everywhere, for every game. I can assure you nobody played this game beyond the 2nd human campaign or won a skirmish with a working AI (because there is none)

It's interesting that, judging from the LoP forums, some folks are able to play through the game with few crashes but a lot are unable to get past the first mission.

I was following the forums for a while and there were a lot of people saying to wait to buy the game because there was no concrete information on it in terms of gameplay videos. The forum rep kept doging the questions of showing gameplay vids or more indepth previews.

I'm pretty sure the devs knew what was going on and that Kalypso had to know as well. I just don't see how holding off for 3 more months could have hurt them worse than this release.

You could put up a review page with a note that the review is pending due to the game being buggy and unplayable at the moment.

I can see both sides of the equation on doing a review, but I simply am not able to play enough of the game to evaluate anything that would remotely constitute the level of detail I require in writing a review. As a comparison, SotS 2 was better off (if you can believe that) and playable enough (and I even waited a week on that one) to render a verdict and talk about what was missing. In the case of LoP, it seems like large chunks of the game are missing or wholly underdeveloped. This doesn't even count the large number of bugs that cause corrupted saved games and crashes to the desktop.

I honestly have nothing to write about. If I did a review, I would be making analysis up based on whatever features are described in the manual. I did send out a tweet regarding this issue, so everyone should simply avoid the game until further notice.

JaguarUSF wrote on Aug 18, 2012, 16:14:
I'm simply waiting to review LoP until it's playable.

I absolutely respect your reviews and read every one but, personally, I don't agree with this decision. Game reviews are meant to be representative of what the average Joe Gamer gets when he buys a game that's available right now. To hold off on a review opens up a bigger conundrum. Kalypso have said they'll patch it up all nice and pretty. What if, for some reason, they don't? (What reason? Humor me...) And really, that's not even the point. Sure, you held off this time. It may pay off, it may not. All you can do is look at it as it is right now. Daikatana was patched up too, but did anyone give a shit? Well, I did, because I played it. But no one else did. Game mag reviewers didn't go back six months/a year post-launch and pull the crucifix from poor John's bloodied forehead (consequently while he mumbled 'More frogs!' silently to himself in a daze) I wouldn't have expected them to either.

I could see having a follow-up type of review a little later down the line to say whether they did actually manage to pull the rabbit out of the hat, but I think it would be a dis-service to your readers and your reputation to not say anything about it...

Just my opinion, a loyal reader, nothing more....


=-Rigs-=

But given that all games get patched

No, actually, they don't.

eRe4s3r wrote on Aug 18, 2012, 17:55:
Yeah, but then that should be what you rate. ;p So it's a 0/8 because nothing works, that would be a fair review, for now. Or are you not doing this because you can not (due to time?) retest games after a while (ie a year or so?)

I totally get your point and agree on principle, this is how it should work. But given that all games get patched, some radically so, having some reviews 3-6 months down the line are also useful.

There's enough data out there for people to know to stay away from this for the time being.

JaguarUSF wrote on Aug 18, 2012, 16:14:
I'm simply waiting to review LoP until it's playable.

I actually appreciate this. Thanks Jag.

If they make good and fix the bugs, finish the missing features, and improve the stability, there is probably a decent game in there. And one I might pay for. Just not right now.

But I'd like to know what it's like six months from now.

Yeah, but then that should be what you rate. ;p So it's a 0/8 because nothing works, that would be a fair review, for now. Or are you not doing this because you can not (due to time?) retest games after a while (ie a year or so?)

eRe4s3r wrote on Aug 18, 2012, 16:37:
Why?

A bug corrupted my campaign and I'm not starting it over until I am sure it won't happen again.

Why? The game is out now.. instead you should think about retesting games if they change over time... and not let reviews stand of outdated versions where your majority complaints are already fixed.

I'm simply waiting to review LoP until it's playable.

LoP is the game that may sink Kalypso. Asking $40 for a game and saying you test all your games throughly and then release this in the state it is is a fucking insult to anyone who bought it, like SotSII was an insult to those who bought it with high expectations.

Offering Patrician IV and Dungeons as a compensation is probably even worse since both games are terrible. The only right thing Kalypso could have done was to offer refunds.

I don't think anyone will trust on anything Kalypso releases after this, perhaps with the exception of Tropico 5 whenever it comes out.

OUCH.

What I don't understand is this:
Why not push the release off a few months and release in November during the Christmas buying season? They HAD to have known the game was unstable and unfinished. I just don't get it.