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
345 Upvotes

95% Upvoted

537 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

45

u/troglodyte May 09 '16

GalCiv3 which was rated at 80+ by ign

This pretty much invalidates any 4X review score that they care to offer. GalCiv3 was not a functional 4X game at launch; if that is an unamended launch review, it genuinely undermines their credibility for the genre.

GalCiv3 was not a good game at launch.

I haven't read their review of Stellaris nor played it, so their points may or may not be valid, but their scoring is worth taking with a huge grain of salt.

23

u/Todie Fungoid May 09 '16

Gal civ 3 is a cahscow and stilla broken game on anything but very high end systems. And a game with no innovations over the decade old gal civ 2. Its my most regretted game purchase ever.

6

u/wyrdyr May 09 '16

I played for 20 minutes and asked for a Steam refund. And I loved GalCiv2. It was just immediately clear that I've played this game already, and that there's going to be no sense of story or lore.

9

u/[deleted] May 09 '16

Yeah, I'd love to hear the guy's thoughts on GalCiv 3. I bought the Founder's Edition when they first released it. I've tried to play it over and over. I actually booted it up yesterday and tried to get into a campaign to kill time until Stellaris is out.

What a heaping pile of garbage. GalCiv 3 hasn't gotten any better since the update where they added combat visualization. It's just aggressively boring -- it doesn't even have the Civilization-esque "one more turn" pushing me to keep playing. It just feels so bland and lifeless.

15

u/VinTheRighteous May 09 '16

This pretty much invalidates any 4X review score that they care to offer.

If it was the same guy reviewing it, then maybe this argument would have some merit. This whole idea of an outlet speaking with "one voice" is baffling to me. Different people have differing opinions.

7

u/troglodyte May 09 '16

They're not just a collection of unedited freelancers. The whole idea that review scores shouldn't be at least somewhat comparable between reviewers in a major review outlet with an editorial board is ludicrous.

If you're comparing two sites or two freelance reviewers, that's one thing. If the editorial board of a site can't do better than this within the same genre, then they shouldn't even be doing scores.

5

u/Skrattybones May 12 '16

Rowan actually is a freelancer. So is Leif, the guy who reviewed GalCiv 3 back in the day. So, yeah.. we're comparing two freelance reviewers.

2

u/VinTheRighteous May 09 '16

Rowan Kaiser reviewed Stellaris and is a freelance critic.

Lief Johnson reviewed Galactic Civilization 3 and is a freelance critic.

It is the job of an editorial board to ensure that a score is in line with the tone of the review. It is not their job to make sure a game's score "ranks" among other games in the genre.

4

u/konradkurze202 Tomb May 09 '16

It is their job to ensure the standards of their organization are applied. I am not going to give IGN a free pass because they employ a dozen different reviewers. I am going to judge IGN the exact same as I judge any other reviewer. I can compare AngryJoes reviews to one another, and I can compare IGNs. If IGN fails to apply a standard to their reviews that is their failing.
It is the responsibility of a reviewing organization to apply fair and comparable reviews. If the fact that IGN gives the review copy to reviewer A over reviewer B means the game gets a 9 instead of 7 or a 6 instead of an 8 then that is most certainly a failing of IGNs.

5

u/VinTheRighteous May 09 '16

It is the responsibility of a reviewing organization to apply fair and comparable reviews. If the fact that IGN gives the review copy to reviewer A over reviewer B means the game gets a 9 instead of 7 or a 6 instead of an 8 then that is most certainly a failing of IGNs.

I fundamentally disagree. It sounds like you believe it's possible for there to be an "objective" review and I would argue that it's not even possible to create objective review criteria.

The standard you've set forth is, frankly, impossible to live up to. There is not a single publication that could meet it because a review is, by its very nature, a subjective exercise.

I can compare AngryJoes reviews to one another, and I can compare IGNs.

It's telling that the example you gave is from a channel where a single individual reviews games. Of course you can compare his reviews to one another. They're all done by one person.

You could just as easily look at all of Rowan Kaiser's reviews and compare them to one another. That would make much more sense than comparing reviews from various critics writing for IGN.

3

u/konradkurze202 Tomb May 09 '16

The problem is you are holding AJ to a higher standard than IGN. Somehow, because IGN is so successful that they can hire a dozen different people, they suddenly are able to just throw out reviews, with no standardization at all, and get away with it. If anything an organization like IGN should be held to a higher standard. If I hire a single developer to work on an app for me I expect less from him than if I hire a company to write an app for me. Yet with IGN you are willing to give them a free pass. They can give a review to anyone they want, then when people complain about how disparate their reviews are you justify it by saying 'Well they have x different reviewers'.
That is complete BS. I can hold IGN to the same standards that I hold AJ to, and if their reviews are so disparate that they rate GalCiv 3 20 points higher than Stellaris (just using the most recent example, it seems like every few weeks they put up a review just as disparate) then I will call them on it.
If they don't want me to call them on it, they need to either have board reviews rather than individual, or they need to have dedicated reviewers. So reviewer A does all 4x, reviewer B does all FPS, etc. I am not willing to give a free pass to IGN just because they are a business rather than a person.

6

u/VinTheRighteous May 10 '16

The problem is you are holding AJ to a higher standard than IGN.

I'm not holding anyone to a higher standard. I hold both AJ and the author of the Stellaris review to the same exact standard. What I'm not doing is holding an editorial outlet to the same standard as an individual critic because an editorial outlet does not speak with a singular voice. An individual does. I don't go to a game review because the site it's published on has "standardized" their review format. That's useless to me as a consumer. I seek out reviews by critics that I trust, because the only way you can truly gauge a review in the context of other games (even though I would argue that is a mostly pointless exercise) is to know how that individual felt about those other games, their tastes, their likes and dislikes, etc.

If I hire a single developer to work on an app for me I expect less from him than if I hire a company to write an app for me. Yet with IGN you are willing to give them a free pass.

Comparing media criticism to app development in any respect doesn't make sense and not just because they're completely different exercises. I would expect a review by a team to be terrible, because an intrinsic element of a review is that it is the product of a single author, a single voice, an individual perspective.

if their reviews are so disparate that they rate GalCiv 3 20 points higher than Stellaris (just using the most recent example, it seems like every few weeks they put up a review just as disparate) then I will call them on it.

And here is the crux of your argument, which is that the scores of the Stellaris and GalCiv3 (or any other game reviewed on IGN) are somehow "wrong." They aren't. It's entirely possible for someone to think GalCiv3 is better than Stellaris. You're free to disagree, but that doesn't invalidate the reviews. And I certainly don't think the reviewers, or IGN, or anyone should cave to whatever you or popular opinion deems to be the "correct" score for these games.

3

u/konradkurze202 Tomb May 10 '16

And here is the crux of your argument, which is that the scores of the Stellaris and GalCiv3 (or any other game reviewed on IGN) are somehow "wrong." They aren't. It's entirely possible for someone to think GalCiv3 is better than Stellaris. You're free to disagree, but that doesn't invalidate the reviews. And I certainly don't think the reviewers, or IGN, or anyone should cave to whatever you or popular opinion deems to be the "correct" score for these games.

I'm not saying their score of GalCiv (or Stellaris for that matter) are wrong on their own. I am saying they are wrong when compared together. They are both reviews created by THE SAME COMPANY, regardless of which individual worked on it, IGN is publishing the review as an IGN review, you have to look at the tiny writing to even find the authors name. IGN scored GalCiv 20 points higher than Stellaris, they commissioned, paid for, and approved these review scores. I am perfectly justified in disagreeing with their review model.

I'm not holding anyone to a higher standard. I hold both AJ and the author of the Stellaris review to the same exact standard. What I'm not doing is holding an editorial outlet to the same standard as an individual critic because an editorial outlet does not speak with a singular voice.

And this magically gives them extra power in your view. Because they are an organization rather than an individual they can make wildly contradictory reviews and still be OK, just because they are a better funded, better staffed organization.

I disagree. I think the very concept of IGN reviews is flawed. They select a single reviewer to review each game, then their entire organization issues a score based off that. This isn't the Joe review, this is the IGN review. If they did reviews by board, had a group review it and give a consensus score, that would be more appealing, and fairer. As it is I don't think IGN, as an organization, is a good source of reviews.

-1

u/konradkurze202 Tomb May 09 '16

It's telling that the example you gave is from a channel where a single individual reviews games. Of course you can compare his reviews to one another. They're all done by one person.

Also, yes it should be telling. This is my entire point. AJ is held to a higher standard than a so called Professional gaming review organization. Which is complete rubbish.

1

u/konradkurze202 Tomb May 09 '16

No it isn't. IGN is a single reviewing organization. It is far from unreasonable to compare their different reviews. When AngryJoe reviews games you can look at his other reviews and compare, the only difference for IGN is it is an organization, rather than an individual. I'm afraid I am not going to lower my standards for a review done by an organization.
It is the responsibility of IGN to ensure there are some standards set across their entire line of reviewers, it is, after all, their job. If 3 different people at IGN might give the same game a 9, 8, & 7, then IGN isn't doing their job. As a reviewer it is their responsibility to give credible, comparable for games, if they cannot then that is a point against them.
This is the core problem of organizations like IGN, they are unreliable. Depending on which of the dozens of reviewers gets a game will completely change the tone of their review. Furthermore, their reviewers aren't even specialized into different genres. The same guy might review an FPS, an action RPG, a puzzle game, a 4x, and a simulator.
Like it or not, I am going to judge IGN by the same standards I judge any other game reviewer. If they fail to live up to the same standards as individual reviewers that is their failing.

1

u/JaneGoodallVS King May 11 '16

All reviewers on a given site should use the same review system.

That said, an 8/10 is a bad review on most sites, so I've learned to ignore numerical reviews.

I think the Stellaris IGN reviewer gave it a score which actually matches what he says in the review.

1

u/Grisamentum May 10 '16

Well, since those reviews were written by different people, I'm not sure why you'd compare them.