Quoting Bellack, reply 135
Quoting Mmrnmhrm, reply 77
As of .86, I would give FE a 55/100.
So, no better than WOM you're saying?
Or are you using some special review scale known only to you that we're supposed to telepathically relate to?
Why give a "score" with nothing to reference to?
I give FE two purple rainbows, a blue diamond and a purple horse shoe.
WOM would be a 1 out of 10 or a 10 out of 100
All comments like this do is make the forum appear to be full of trolls. Look out l33t you are.
WOM's review average is 53 out of 100. That is a fact. If people feel like they have to share a rating of a beta game to the public, they should stick with using a number that means something.
IF WOM is a 53 THEN FE BETA .86 is easily a 75 IMO.
Someone trying to retro-review WOM using their own personal review system at this point is just an exercise in narcissism.
Ad Hominem (namecalling) is unproductive. Your response was to Bellack, but I gave current FE 0.86 a 2 using Civ4 BtS as the standard 10. Am I a l33t troll too?
Why FE currently is a comparative 2:
-improve factions/leaders to be as significant as Civ4 leader/nation: +1 to score
-improve city differentiation to be as significant as Civ4's (where you have production cities, specialist cities, etc. whereas with FE cities are pretty much the same absent forest/streams, and especially the same as outposts make placement near resources less important): +1 to score
-improve economy (Civ4 will crash your economy and research if you expand too fast, you can fund your empire with conquest, etc.): +1
-improve tech tree (Civ4 allows great variability of what to tech depending on strategy, how the game plays out, etc.): +0.5 (FE already has made some improvement here)
-improve balance: +1
-improve UI (Civ4 is amazing, shows much at a glance, can delve in to see great detail, etc.): +1
-improve importance of city placement: +0.5 (similar to 'city differentiation but some difference so only 0.5)
-overall 'feel' (how the game parts all fit together, 'polish', replayability, different victory conditions being... well, different, etc.): +1
-improve AI (yes, Civ4 SoD wasn't good AI but if one delves into Civ4 AI you'll see how complex it is in what it takes into account and reacts to): +1
Artwork, moddability, etc. already are good and so no improvement needed here.
Add the above to the current 2.0 and it sums to 10.0
@Bellack's "I agree Civ and FE are two different animals in the same kingdom. Games like HoMM, AOW:SM and MOM are more like what FE should be compared to."
Again, I'm not saying Civ4 and FE are the same 'animal', I'm using Civ4 as the 'gold standard' for a TBS in 2012 (heck, as FE has 2 of Civ's best people working on it the comparison is especially applicable). Frankly, today's AAA title hopefuls should be aiming to exceed Civ4 BtS, to boldly go beyond... I'm merely hoping for FE to be its equal, thus a 10 and not a Spinal Tap 11.0 will suffice.