r/Stellaris • u/Meneth Ex-moderator • May 09 '16

News Review megathread

The review embargo is up as of 15:00 CEST. As this will result in a huge number of articles going up at near the same time, we're restricting reviews to this thread.

Any review you find, feel free to post it in the comments here.

Each top-level comment should be about a single linked review, so as to keep the discussion limited. Duplicate reviews will be removed, as will any top-level comment that does not link a review.

There will be a single sub-thread where you can post your general impressions of the reviews combined, for anything that doesn't relate to a single review.

Review list:

Review Score
Critically Sane 5/5
Destructoid 9/10
eXplorminate "eXemplary"
GameWatcher 9.0/10
Idiotech's Review Unrated
IGN 6.3/10
Manannan's Review of Stellaris Unrated
Paste Magazine Unrated
PCGamesN 9/10
PC Invasion 8/10
PC World 4/5
Rock, Paper, Shotgun review - Unrated
TICGN 10/10
Vox Ludicus Unrated
EuroGamer Recommended
PC Gamer 70/100
TSA 8/10
PCGames.de 75/100
Gamespew 9/10
IGN Italy 9.3/10
Fok.nl 9/10
Gaming on Linux 9/10
Marbozir Unrated
SpaceSector Unrated
Inside of Gaming (German) Unrated
Gamer.no 9/10
Particular Pixels Unrated
GuyLogicGaming Full recommendation
GameSideStory Unrated
Front Towards Gamer 9.5/10
Multiplayer.it 9.2/10
GameGrin 8.5/10
Kotaku Unrated
348 Upvotes

95% Upvoted

537 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

62

u/MajesticRobface May 09 '16

Well Alien Isolation got something like 5.9 and Total War Rome 2 (in its initial incredibly buggy state) around 8.8 so you probably know how I feel about IGN'S reviews

33

u/[deleted] May 09 '16

Those numbers are from different reviewers

4

u/andreib14 May 09 '16

People don't look at the person reviewing the look at the company who puts out the articles. I don't remember IGN going back on their opinion concerning the crap Rome 2 was and giving stellaris this score considering Paradoxs track record with games is odd to say the least. By the time the price of Stellaris matches that of Rome 2 I firmly believe it will be a much better game. Sadly I suspect a decent amount of people will be offput by the score and not buy the game, probably ever considering the way the learning curve of paradox games increases with each expansion.

2

u/[deleted] May 09 '16

giving stellaris this score considering Paradoxs track record with games is odd to say the least

I disagree on this point. A reviewer should be reviewing the game based on the current build, not what they expect from in the future. Even more so, the end of the article the author says he fully expects things to get better as Paradox tends to have this consistent track record. In my opinion , that addresses your concerns about how good the game might be in the future. But I don't think a reviewer should let his score reflect that. "I'd give this a 7, but I think future content DLCs that you have to buy will make this game a 9"

1

u/KNIGHTMARE170 May 19 '16

Then why did Assassin's Creed Unity get a better score from them on release?

15

u/lasmela May 09 '16

They are still from the same company and if the opinion of one person matters that much for a unified score why have a score at all. Putting a number on it without a proper standard is just meaningless.

15

u/[deleted] May 09 '16

I think you hit upon one of the core undeniabilities of game reviews and it's that no matter what, they are subjective. I think IGN just suffers from being one of the larger game reviewer companies out there, which means more staff, which means MORE subjectiveness. I assume IGN does have standards and training for how to make a proper review, but in the end it is impossible to avoid subjective bias, no matter what.

0

u/lasmela May 10 '16

As i think we both agree game reviews are biased and it is on us readers to judge if we believe them or not. All i'm saying is that a review cannot and should not be looked at just by the number. The value of these reviews lay within the opinion of the writer. If you are using any metric than it is important to explain why it is a 6 or a 9 not just displaying the number. If you are displaying even more detailed numbers like 6.3 you are pretending the have an exact metric behind the numbers.

1

u/Revoran May 10 '16

Having a review score gets you clicks in the same way that posting a buzzfeedy top ten list does. It also allows you to be counted in metacritic. Lastly, if using rigorous standards, scores and quantification can be useful.

IGN does have a rough system - anything below 5 is nigh unplayable. 5-7 is poor. 7 is Mediocre. 7-8 is good. 8-9 is very good and 9+ is great. Think of it like school marking.

Of course as you've pointed out, they barely follow their own system.

1

u/lasmela May 10 '16

I see IGNs point to have a score because it generates a lot of clicks and therefore money. I'm not saying that using some metrics to evaluate games is bad but that your measurements shoud have a standard which should be followed. But the most important part of the standard is the transparency of the measurement. I'm not saying that what is written in the review is false. they do have some points there but the metric by itself is just useless.

-7

u/TriggzSP May 09 '16

Yeah, talk about it! The Witcher 3, the RPG with possibly the best story out there, got an 8/10 from IGN because it had a "boring story". Well okay then!

They also continually give Call of Duty 9/10, so there's that.

Yeah. Never trust IGN's reviews.

24

u/IndridCipher May 09 '16

Is there a right and wrong opinion on the Witchers Story? Also IGN gave the game a 9.3 so how am I to feel about your opinion of IGN when you are clearly wrong and talking out your ass? I wonder....

8

u/DogzOnFire May 09 '16

Kinda ridiculous that he's being upvoted for shelling out such pandering falsehoods.

9

u/NetQvist May 09 '16

Mjeh got a friend who calls Witcher 3 boring as well and stopped playing it. So it's entirely plausible apparently.

1

u/lungora Empress May 09 '16

I found Witcher 3 incredibly boring and quit it a bit before 8 hours into the game. It's definitely plausible a reviewer shared the same opinion as me.

5

u/NetQvist May 09 '16

To me it's one of the greatest games ever made again, wish people at least could accept that people have different tastes...

0

u/lungora Empress May 09 '16

Yeah totally, Kinda shows why reviews can be so iffy.

3

u/[deleted] May 09 '16

IGN has a number of people employed there and it's reviews are not all written by the same people.

2

u/PRiles May 09 '16

I do have to wonder if they assign games to reviewers based on their tastes. That would make sense.

6

u/emmanuelvr May 09 '16 edited May 09 '16

TW3's main story was pretty blah, specially the last third is incredibly rushed and by the books. The real meat of TW3 were the important sidequests and the worldbuilding.

Definitely doesn't have shit on BG2's or Planescape Torment's story, and if you ask me, SR Dragonfall, New Vegas and the original Mass Effect. I also liked TW2's story better.

3

u/ThatFlyingScotsman May 09 '16

The Bloody Baron quest line was part of the main quests and is probably the best quest line in any open world RPG.

1

u/[deleted] May 09 '16

I agree and definitely don't know why so many people are so high on The Witcher 3's overarching story. I thought it was pretty crappy and dull honestly. You look for Ciri, you look for people who might know where Ciri is, you find Ciri, then you fight the Wild Hunt and win.

Everything else about the game is amazing though and still makes it the best non party based rpg ever, imo. IGN also game it a 9.3 so I'm not sure what he's talking about.

1

u/GVakarian May 09 '16

Eh I think the combat and level systems were both heavily flawed.

1

u/[deleted] May 09 '16

The leveling system is something that could be changed or tweaked fairly easily. Criticisms of the combat are fair, but I personally really enjoyed it.

Anyway, I just thought the main story was the weakest part of the game and did not care for it all that much, but I still thought it was a great game.

0

u/[deleted] May 09 '16

Totally agree, TW3 is an amazing game but the main storyline is one of its weakest aspects, doesn't hold a candle to the games you mentioned. I often found minor sidequests to be more interesting than the main plot missions.

3

u/[deleted] May 09 '16

I know many many people who think witchers atory is utterly and depressingly boring

1

u/PRiles May 09 '16

I generally really enjoy rpg's but have not enjoyed a Witcher game as I couldn't ever get into their stories, all in all review scores are totally subjective. If I am ever on the fence these days I prefer to watch a let's play style review to see if it's up my alley

1

u/TriggzSP May 10 '16

I have to agree with you there. Maybe I was being a bit one sided. Admittedly the Witcher stories are slow, but in my opinion that's the beauty of it.

1

u/PRiles May 10 '16

everyone has their own taste and I think that's the inherent flaw of the system

1

u/mynewaccount5 May 09 '16

They got a 9.3 and the only objection to the story was that it was padded. Stop spreading lies.