Europa Universalis III (PC)

Good posts - Timofmars sums things up well, but I think you're making some good points as well, Nxs.

However, Nxs, you seem to feel that what upset everyone is the score - I don't think that's the case, although some certainly was upset by that bit too. It's not about agreeing with all the "fanboys", it's a matter of not being the right man to evaluate this particular type of game. As has been said by others, I wouldn't mind a 5/10 if the review brought forth genuine problems with the game compared to others from its genre. The reviewer complained about stuff that's quite fundamental in the genre, and as a result the credibility of the entire review went out the window. That's the actual problem with the review. I honestly don't care much about ratings in general, as they obviously just reflect a certain person's opinion. God knows that throughout the years I've found myself enjoying several games that've received mediocre scores while being bored to death by some getting top ones.
As for myself, I'm hardly a "fanboy" or in any way someone who would be fanatically protective about any game in general. Actually, this is the first game in the EU series that I've actually gotten into, though I've played some other Paradox games as well as a lot of strategy games in general. The reason why I reacted was because I felt that the review didn't really describe the cons and pros of the game well at all, due to what seems to be the reviewer's lack of interest and/or inexperience of the genre. And yeah, I _think_ there are several things that could have been implemented better in the game, but none of those things are mentioned by the reviewer. In fact, some important aspects of the game, such as diplomacy and trading, aren't mentioned at all. For all the reader knows, the game could be completely without such features.
As for the dilemma of posting a second opinion, I can certainly see your point. While some (very few) magazines actually use two different reviewers (hopefully with different tastes) to rate a game - usually a high-profile one of course - that's a different matter. In this case we'd be dealing with something published as an afterthought. I certainly can see the problem here - while I feel that the review Ian wrote is very flawed and rather much useless to people genuinely interested in the genre, a second review might at the same time prove to be a Pandora's box, as you say. :|

» Go to Calanor's original post

» Go to 's original post

» Go to 's original post

» Go to 's original post

» Go to 's original post