Steam Reviews

[Elijah]

I'd suggest you to look at the negative steam review that was made by a customer, exactly a XartaX guy.

Though I don't really agree about most things he said, I'd say that it is important to see what most of the people who saw the reviews actually think that he's right.

So have a look, many ideas I think there.

[BobTheJanitor]

The unfortunate design of Steam reviews means that his great big thumbs down is the first thing people see. Too bad, since everything else is positive. And that review has a lot of complaints about things that were already fixed. To his credit, he does seem to be updating it somewhat as new versions come out, although it remains somewhat inaccurate. Not really much that can be done, except getting more positive reviews to drown out the negative, or to cater to one random guy's every whim about how the game 'should' be.

[rjblackwolf]

The problem with this kind of guys is the attention they get from this.
They will spend hours, weeks, months, only to destroy the game or the name of the studio they don't like.
It`s almost there higher purpose on the steam forum, not playing the game, not playing another game, only to get attention and to burn it all.

The only thing people can do is to up-vote the positive reviews to fight this kind of disease "reviews"
The steam forums and reviews are just as bad as meta-critic. 

[Mick]

His review is very well written an accurate in some respects. The fact that he updated it when patch changes made parts of it no longer relevant goes against any kind of accusation that he has some sinister plot to destroy the game.

[Elijah]

His review is very well written an accurate in some respects. The fact that he updated it when patch changes made parts of it no longer relevant goes against any kind of accusation that he has some sinister plot to destroy the game.

Yeah, I agree. I think there are a few suggestions there, even if made in a sort of accusation toward the game.
The sort of "I played 500h of Europa Universalis IV, so I know that it is a shame that TLF is called a grand strategy game" is a very, very childish remark. But I agree with him on some points. Like researching the tech a race already knows. It should be called
"Gaining the races knowledge on the tech" instead of "actually I'm researching it again". Things like these really break the immersion of the game.

Also the fact that it is very hard to research techs and then so easy to make races give them to other races. They should be much more "No, I actually spent so much time to research this tech and I won't give it to my enemy for 200creds." It should be easier for example to give the tech to races they like, for example. Even if from a gameplay point of view it flows all right to be so easy for races to exchange techs, from an immersion point of view it really isn't.
I think everywhere can be found something useful, also in his review, especially since so many people agreed with him.

[Mick]

Parts of what he said resonated with me. I do think that a lot of the depth of the game seems irrelevant. Is it? I honestly can't say for sure, but from the perspective of a player, if something *seems* irrelevant, then it might as well be. I've advocated more and more transparency in the mechanics, and I still do. The player needs to feel that his actions are impactful on the situation. Some of these are more obvious than others, and some of them probably just need more dial tuning. For instance, I still am unsure why I should care about RCI much at all. The tutorial tells you to experiment with high and low ones, but the whole system is nebulous to me. I can see how it's easy to feel that the game really just boils down to grinding influence and relations values.

I know how Arcen responds quickly to bugs, and also sympathize with the financial issues that essentially forced this game to be released when it is, but I can appreciate how people might feel that they "bought into a beta". I think in a perfect world, Arcen would have been able to have the game bake longer, but it is how it is, and the decision made to release was best for the company, and thus ultimately the game itself.

When someone expresses disappointment in the bugs though, I think it's very unhelpful to tell them that they are wrong or their feelings are invalid. That is not the way to win hearts and minds. Listening to the criticisms, acknowledging what founds that criticism, and responding to it in a respectful dialog is what wins people over.

[Elijah]

When someone expresses disappointment in the bugs though, I think it's very unhelpful to tell them that they are wrong or their feelings are invalid. That is not the way to win hearts and minds. Listening to the criticisms, acknowledging what founds that criticism, and responding to it in a respectful dialog is what wins people over.

Yep. I totally agree. That is why I wanted to inform the developers (they probably already know but I had some free time cleaning the house, soo... )

[Pepisolo]

Not a very balanced review. There wasn't a single piece of positive feedback in it (unless you count "there is lots of depth, in a way". Meh, it's just one guy's opinion.

[GC13]

The sort of "I played 500h of Europa Universalis IV, so I know that it is a shame that TLF is called a grand strategy game" is a very, very childish remark.

I'll say. If he'd played any of Paradox's "other" grand strategy games he'd know just know un-grand strategy EU4 was.

[kosmoface]

As long as you don't really understand what you are doing, it is pretty pointless to critisize the game.

You could give a knife and a fork to somebody, but unless he knows how to use these it seems pretty pointless to him to use them anyway. And I for one like to find out some things on my own. It is much more interesting to learn on your own how to use a knife and a fork, compared to getting everything explained to the last bit. This is boring in my book. But that's just me.

[BobTheJanitor]

We don't want to go on a tear against one person's honest opinions here. I'm sure this person doesn't have any particular axe to grind, probably just not a fan. Which is fine, not every person has to like every thing. I'm just bemoaning the fact that one person who isn't too fond of the game managed to get marked as the most 'helpful' review.

[Qoojo]

I skimmed a few sentences of the review in mentioned, and I agree with the few that I read. In particular, "There is lots of depth in a way, but most of it is irrelevant." What I initially took to be options and depth on first glance, eventually ended up being a fast forward 2x or quick dock to a space station in gameplay. After seeing that, I haven't played since release or the day after. Waiting for things to get refined.

[Misery]

To a point I can see where the guy is coming from.

The biggest problem is the spamming of influence or relations generating tasks.  Mostly relations between races.  It IS possible to basically grind a Federation together right now. Playing it that way is boring as hell.... so I personally aint doin it that way.... and when NOT done that way, the game is very good...nbut currently it's possible.  It needs to not be.

That, though, isnt a flaw with the core gameplay.  It's more of a balance issue, and frankly it's the sort of thing I expect with a new release like this.  It had a good testing period, and alot of testers, but really, we can only catch so many issues during that, and the devs can only FIX so many at that time.  And if it's that much of a problem... bring it to their attention!  I've found that not just Arcen, but a great many indie devs, are very good at listening to feedback and actually DOING something about it.  But they have to get enough of that feedback for it to work, and reviews are NOT the best way to do this in most cases.

What struck me as stupid though was the "I'm so damn smart and good at these because I played this one very different game for 500 hours!" bit.  I can say:  Yeah, so have I. Not THAT specific game, but I love games like this.  Or for the shmuppy side... I could point out a couple of games where I have 1000+ hours in them, but I aint gonna bash that part of the game because of it.  Same as I wouldnt bash a full "proper" shmup just because of it being different from those.  There's alot of stuff to consider PURELY in the context of the game being reviewed, and that's important to consider.  Yeah, you can compare two games, but if you go into it with an "I've done THIS, I'm ultra-knowledgeable about this of course" attitude, it just dilutes what you have to say.

Feh.  I usually ignore these reviews myself.  THey're not a BAD idea, but I dont care for the stupid voting system much (how do you know those people even read it? As opposed to playing the game for a time, getting frustrated, and going in and upvoting a bunch of negative reviews in response) and generally I prefer video reviews.

I skimmed a few sentences of the review in mentioned, and I agree with the few that I read. In particular, "There is lots of depth in a way, but most of it is irrelevant." What I initially took to be options and depth on first glance, eventually ended up being a fast forward 2x or quick dock to a space station in gameplay. After seeing that, I haven't played since release or the day after. Waiting for things to get refined.

The fast-forward 2x bit is simply how dispatches work.  The options themselves still have the depth; the fast-forwarding is just so you can see what happens in that time.  As opposed to some games which would instead just give you a screen saying "Hey, you're done, 20 months have passed!!! " and then a big list of stuff to read through.   The options still DO the same things, regardless of how they;re represented.  .....and if you compare it to other similar games, fast-forwarding is VERY common in those (like in Paradox's stuff).

As for the docking bit... yeah, some of those missions need work.  I've already addressed that in extreme detail elsewhere though, so we'll see what happens with that. 

[Azurian]

When I plan on buying  new games just released I usually wait a minimum of a week/one month  after release to try the game.

In one week from release, TLF with its 5-7 patches, will be significantly improved over its launch version.

When the new expansion arrives in June,  TLF  will probably become more hyped and mainstream.

[Aziphos]

The funny thing about the review is, shortly after release you could have said very similar things about europa universalis...there were some really extreme bugs and lots of systems were kind of bad...and it was the most bugfree game paradox interactive has ever released.
Annexing the Aztecs and seeing endless rebelstacks, containing more canons than europe could possibly have produced in that timeframe, forcing the king of portugal to abdicate in favor of an animist republic...it was glorious.
A perfect example for the fact that complex games will be bugged and flawed in the time shortly after release, especially if they contain completely new systems and mechanics...someone who played 500 hours of EU should know that.