AI War review on Eurogamer

[Ramsar]

The title says it all: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-02-14-ai-war-fleet-command-review

[x4000]

It's a balancing act, with your own strength on one side, and the AI's opinion of you on the other. Piss it off before you're ready to face it, and you're going to get squashed.  That moment, when you're finally in a position to turn the tables, is about as glorious as gaming gets.
- Phill Cameron, Eurogamer Review

The review is really quite worth a read, as it's one of the better ones we've ever seen for really capturing what the game is all about.

[Malibu Stacey]

Phill Cameron (aka Poisoned Sponge) is an occasional contributor to Rock, Paper, Shotgun so I'd expect the review to be of a pretty high standard. The RPS guys don't mess about when it comes to games journalism (except when the game being journalised requires messing about).

Now if only we could get them to restart their campaign write up.

[x4000]

Phill actually is the guy that did the interview on RPS about AVWW, too.  He'd already written and submitted the AI War review for Eurogamer before he even contacted me about AVWW, but I didn't know the contents of the review until today. 

Definitely a sharp bunch, those RPS folks.  Alec Meer, who also writes for RPS a lot, did the review of AI War for PC Gamer back in 2009.

[Collic]

RPS is the one of the only gaming websites worth reading, in my opinion. They're unashamedly opinionated without being antagonistic and the comments tend to be worth reading, and largely without the pretension and sarcastic sneering you sadly find throughout many sites like it. The writers also really engage with us plebeians in a way most don't

[Echo35]

RPS is the one of the only gaming websites worth reading, in my opinion. They're unashamedly opinionated without being antagonistic and the comments tend to be worth reading, and largely without the pretension and sarcastic sneering you sadly find throughout many sites like it. The writers also really engage with us plebeians in a way most don't

Absolutely. I get a lot of my gaming news from there. They're one of the best sites around.

[Red Spot]

I just tend to check game forums and read user-reviews and (lack of) bugreports, (lack of) support from a developer.
First time I actually looked into AIW my mind was made up rather quickly...

(A Metascore of 80 in my eyes isnt that good, but those scores are usually based on a releaseversion anyway so should be taken with a pinch of salt. The Metascore userreviews are few, but they say a lot, even the 'bad review' is a very good one in my eyes (it basicly says "the game sucks cause it is so darn difficult")).

[Malibu Stacey]

This thread on RPS was what originally brought AI War to my attention. I really wish they'd start a new one of those write ups in v5.0 as that one was in either v2.0 or v3.0 & they never carried on with the write up for the game despite many requests.

That was back before Steam started showing RPS posts in it's news feeds. In my opinion the quality of commenters has been degrading ever since unfortunately. Thankfully it's still above most other gaming sites.

[KingIsaacLinksr]

I just tend to check game forums and read user-reviews and (lack of) bugreports, (lack of) support from a developer.
First time I actually looked into AIW my mind was made up rather quickly...

(A Metascore of 80 in my eyes isnt that good, but those scores are usually based on a releaseversion anyway so should be taken with a pinch of salt. The Metascore userreviews are few, but they say a lot, even the 'bad review' is a very good one in my eyes (it basicly says "the game sucks cause it is so darn difficult")).

I'd say 85+ is good enough for Metascore (to be sure the game is good).  Below that and it gets riskier.  Not the greatest system, but it works pretty well. 

King

[Panopticon]

I'm pretty sure that Metacritic is everything wrong with gaming journalism and criticism. Arbitrary number schemes ultimately don't tell me a thing at all about whether or not I will like a game. Actually reading a review is better, but still you are relying on the opinion of one person. And a lot of times I get the feeling that a lot of these critics aren't really the most capable gamers. Often I'll take complaints about a games difficulty as a positive in a review, simply because too many games have become Press A to WIN!

I personally rely on a few forums for what I consider credible opinions, from people who I've gamed with or at least share similar taste in games.

That said, I do like the way sites like Eurogamer and RPS handle reviews. No number or point systems that are left to the imagination ( I give this game 4 Bicycles in Graphics, 3 Turnips in Gameplay and the Story gets 10 Garden Hoses! ), and a concise relation of game mechanics and play experiences.

[KingIsaacLinksr]

I'm pretty sure that Metacritic is everything wrong with gaming journalism and criticism. Arbitrary number schemes ultimately don't tell me a thing at all about whether or not I will like a game. Actually reading a review is better, but still you are relying on the opinion of one person. And a lot of times I get the feeling that a lot of these critics aren't really the most capable gamers. Often I'll take complaints about a games difficulty as a positive in a review, simply because too many games have become Press A to WIN!

I personally rely on a few forums for what I consider credible opinions, from people who I've gamed with or at least share similar taste in games.

That said, I do like the way sites like Eurogamer and RPS handle reviews. No number or point systems that are left to the imagination ( I give this game 4 Bicycles in Graphics, 3 Turnips in Gameplay and the Story gets 10 Garden Hoses! ), and a concise relation of game mechanics and play experiences.

mmm, its true that reviews are better usually, especially if you find someone(s) who plays like you and likes nearly the same things but yet is expansive enough to expose you to new things.  But metacritic is good if you just want a glancing guess at how good the game is.  True that it is very arbitrary, but I've noticed that the reviews are "pretty decent" from metacritic.  They at least help me avoid some really bad games, and that is definitely worthwhile. 

King

[Zeba]

I like gamerankings.com as instead of writing reviews it lists all the other reviews even by obscure sites in one handy list. Then you just use your wits and make up your own mind though its a pretty good indicator if everyone likes the game or it gets a close spread of positive reviews regardless of site. So if them big name sites that may or may not bias reviews due to concerns of getting the ad money shut off give a high rating and the indie sites that could give a damn about marketing and just care about how good the game plays agree its probably a winner.

Plus the review was pretty spot on about the newest gameplay. Its finally grown to be a true epic trek from world to world with each presenting its own unique way to deal with them with thoughtful planning and force selection instead of the fun but ultimately boring days of have blob will pwn. 

[Ozymandiaz]

cool

[LostInBKK]

I bought the game on the basis of this review as soon as I saw there was a OSX version on Steam

Now I have loaded it up I am completely lost. Is there a n00b guide I should start with?

Cheers

Lost

[Wingflier]

I'd say 85+ is good enough for Metascore (to be sure the game is good).  Below that and it gets riskier.  Not the greatest system, but it works pretty well. 

Seems like these days I look for games with good reviews and stay the hell away from them.  With games like Dragon Age and Cataclysm getting 90+ scores on Metacritic, I've come to the conclusion that my tastes are incredibly different than today's average gamer (though ironically, Cataclysm got a user score of 5.6 out of 10 on Metacritic, making you wonder what caused the huge disparity).