«

[Iron_Scarecrow]

Originally posted by Eagle of Fire@Nov 3 2004, 05:27 PM
I also completely agree with The Picard. A rating of 5 is possible, think of Master of Orion, UFO: Ennemy Unknown and Civilization, for starters...

I haven't played Master of Orion. But the other two deserve 1's. Shocking, your perfect 5's are being thrown around without any thought.

[Tom Henrik]

This is the system I use when I rate a game.

5 -- The game doesn't have any downsides, and is extremely well made.
(I look at the size, the length of the game, graphic, sound, controls and so on. Then I judge the game up against the other games made this period and the other games in the series).

4 -- The game is excellent, but could have been made better. Something is amiss.

3 -- Enjoyable. Some will like the game, some will not.

2 -- Wow... This game is only for hardcore fanatics!

1 -- How could this game get past the quality control? :blink:

[Kon-Tiki]

I give my ratings like this:

5) Still reading? Download and play, goddamnit!
4) Great game, but there might be people who'd get annoyed because of some things.
3) Good game, but could've been done better
2) Worth in a collection, but if you're looking for a good time, look further
1) Crap

[Eagle of Fire]

I don't regret giving NetStorm a 5 in the slightest. =)

I do, NetStrom sure deserve a 4 but is far from being a classic or perfect, very far... I know, I played that game for 1 and a half year!

[Durak]

Well I guess you weren't very good or you never REALLY played the game. It is so brilliantly made with teamplay and combinations which make each fury equal. The idea was brilliant and it has been so far different from any other strategy game since it can't be reproduced nearly as well.

Another part of the game is the society. The zones aren't loaded with people and you really make good friends. It makes the game much more fun for 2 v 2 and 3 v 3 (like most other games you play with friends multiplayer) and the teamwork is very enjoyable.

[auhsor]

I think that we should implement ratings out of 10. A rating for a game of 3 usually doesn't seem that great, however most of my favourite games on this site have a user rating of 3, and that annoys me.

For example, the Space Quest Games. They are one of my favourite series, but evey one of those games has a user rating of 3. I know they might not be everyones cup of tea, but they are awesome games, and do deserve more than that. It seems people are rating of just the look of the game, without even playing them.

[Eagle of Fire]

Well I guess you weren't very good or you never REALLY played the game. It is so brilliantly made with teamplay and combinations which make each fury equal. The idea was brilliant and it has been so far different from any other strategy game since it can't be reproduced nearly as well.

Another part of the game is the society. The zones aren't loaded with people and you really make good friends. It makes the game much more fun for 2 v 2 and 3 v 3 (like most other games you play with friends multiplayer) and the teamwork is very enjoyable.

The game was way more enjoyable when there was actually people to fight with. There was, at the time I was playing, a lot of bugs and cheating which really brought the game down.

As for playing, I was very good. My brother was even better than me, but not that far. Recently my brother began playing again (after downloading the game from here) and his fun was to play with a level one against higher ranked people and still win! He was going from levels to levels until he played against someone who cheated against him. He could not build anything at all on his island for the exception of his temple and bridges. He was really pissed since that cheat continued for his other games afterward... He had to start all over.

No need to say that he did not bothered.

For the gameplay, it's brilliant. But play it for a year and you'll notice that it always end up the same; someone get a flying unit and try to grab your priest with the offensive spells or they go Wind with crosbows... Or die trying something else...

So, I definitly say that, while this game is really good, it doesn't deserve a 5 because it has several flaws.

[Durak]

First of all, you haven't played the game for a mightly long time and all that has changed.

Secondly, the sides are more even so it's not all crossbows anymore.

Third, people don't play with spells anymore (you can turn them off as battlemaster) except for the new people.

Fourth, there is no more cheating with the new patch.

Fifth, it isn't very fun to play against rankers and only new people rank. Ranking doesn't show any skill since it would just show who plays more. Also, most good people play 2 v 2 or 3 v 3 with rank 1 forts for enjoyment (Mainly play 1 v 1 if not too many people online or if they feel threatened by an insult "You suck" or such).

Lastly, quite a fair number of people play now, especially now that it's on Abandonia and a lot of other sites .

[Eagle of Fire]

I played again when the game came back on Abadonnia... And I can argue most of what you just said easily.

[Tom Henrik]

And that is why we use the rating system. So that you may give your vote by a simple click, instead of filling a topic with them. Views are different. What you love, others will hate. It's called experience.