Our first bad review for Darwinia, and its from jolt.co.uk. Michael Filby rips into the game throughout his review and scores the game a terrible 5.9 out of 10, by far our lowest review score so far. Our apologies for not seeing this review until today, but we weren't actually informed it existed by the website in question, and only found out about it through the World of Stuart forums. And to complain about such basic errors as reporting our Publisher as Pinnacle Software (odd for a self-published company) would just be petty. Here are some of our favourite quotes:
"What really ramps up the level of tedium though is the fact that none of your units seem to have anything even approaching a sensible level of AI, which pretty much means you have to be constantly shepherding them around."
"...at the end of the day, we're left with a fairly annoying RTS title full of niggling and frustrating bugs, poor design decisions, and pathfinding that has dripped directly from the nose of Satan himself."
Read the full review for yourself and post your comments here
We have several other additions to the Exposure section of our website
- Scans added for the PC Gamer review (90%)
- Scans added for PC Games Magazine (85%)
- GameReactor scored the game 9/10. Read the review here.
RESET magazine has reviewed Darwinia and scores it at 8/10. We've added some scans to the Exposure section under Print Reviews. Here are some of the wicked quotes from that article:
"I'm in love with all the references, the gorgeous aestethics, the intelligent programming, the attitude and the fact that Introversion does whatever they want and doesn't take any shit. The game is almost as good."
"The game sounds organic, alive, almost as if the game world boiled with life. It's at times, a scary soundscape that it creates. It sounds as I imagine it would if an electric monster ate code."
Visit the RESET website here.
darwinia takes a beating!
-
Maccher5555
- level2
- Posts: 80
- Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 9:25 pm
-
Cargo Cult
- level1
- Posts: 31
- Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 11:51 pm
Homeworld 2, eh?
Beautiful game, sounds gorgeous, was about as much fun (for me) as a late tax return due to its (for me) ridiculous difficulty. I got to the third or fourth level before giving up - and I played full-price for it as well. I think I need to try again...
Only complaint about Darwinia is that it's quite easy now I've got the hang of it - are there any variables I can tweak so I can get the whole campaign again, but harder?
Beautiful game, sounds gorgeous, was about as much fun (for me) as a late tax return due to its (for me) ridiculous difficulty. I got to the third or fourth level before giving up - and I played full-price for it as well. I think I need to try again...
Only complaint about Darwinia is that it's quite easy now I've got the hang of it - are there any variables I can tweak so I can get the whole campaign again, but harder?
Dont Worry Guys....
Dont worry guys, it takes a certain appreciation for this style of game. It’s just because it’s not a run-of-the-mill strategy game (may have put a bad taste in jolt's mouth), It’s innovative, some people have issues dealing with change.
~~ Nate
~~ Nate
return 0;
}
}
An average (3.5/5) review from Gameshark, their advice being wait for a couple of patches befor buying the game. (thanks to cyph for finding this one)
AI - Your units arent meant to have AI! >_< I hate the fact that some people need everything done in a game for them, can't they do it themselves?!
Pathfinding - is part of the AI >_<...
jolt.co.uk peoples obviously need to have games play themselves so that they can just look at the pretty effects...
Edit: "the engineer units resembling space invaders" NO! No they don't! They are engineers from Tron! >_< IDIOT.
Etc....
Pathfinding - is part of the AI >_<...
jolt.co.uk peoples obviously need to have games play themselves so that they can just look at the pretty effects...
Edit: "the engineer units resembling space invaders" NO! No they don't! They are engineers from Tron! >_< IDIOT.
Etc....
We dont stop playing cos we get old... We get old cos we stop playing.
Hi everyone. It seems that many of you don't agree with my review of Darwinia - sorry about that. We do need to remember a few things though. For a start, 5.9 isn't really a terrible score - it recognises that the game is above average, but hampered by flaws. Also, nobody seems to mind that Edge and GamesTM both gave it a 7, which is only marginally more than we gave it.
I went to lengths to point out in the review that I love Uplink and have respect for the Introversion guys, but I find it baffling that so many people should sully their defences of the game by being aggressive, illogical, and not actually explaining why it is that they think we're wrong. Still, it seems that this is what the internet community has come to, which is a shame.
In any case, the fact that half of us reviewers think the game is ace whereas the other half think that it's good-but-flawed will reflect what the consumer will think, and ultimately help them to decide whether or not to purchase the game by presenting both viewpoints.
At the end of the day though, I stand by my review, and no amount of unreasoned flaming will make me change my mind. And to the guy who thinks we're idiots because we don't like Star Wolves - every review I've read of that so far has slated it.
Anyway, best wishes to the Introversion team - we're looking forward to seeing your next project
--------------------
PC Zone Magazine
Jolt Online Gaming
I went to lengths to point out in the review that I love Uplink and have respect for the Introversion guys, but I find it baffling that so many people should sully their defences of the game by being aggressive, illogical, and not actually explaining why it is that they think we're wrong. Still, it seems that this is what the internet community has come to, which is a shame.
In any case, the fact that half of us reviewers think the game is ace whereas the other half think that it's good-but-flawed will reflect what the consumer will think, and ultimately help them to decide whether or not to purchase the game by presenting both viewpoints.
At the end of the day though, I stand by my review, and no amount of unreasoned flaming will make me change my mind. And to the guy who thinks we're idiots because we don't like Star Wolves - every review I've read of that so far has slated it.
Anyway, best wishes to the Introversion team - we're looking forward to seeing your next project
--------------------
PC Zone Magazine
Jolt Online Gaming
Last edited by Parallax on Tue May 31, 2016 3:04 am, edited 1 time in total.
i said the reviews were idiotic, not only because you in both cases failed to graps what the game is about, but also because the reasoning that leads to the scoring is not only based on these misunderstandings, it is also self-contradicting.
i never said you were idiots.
and even tho this is going off-topic: yea, quite a lot of reviews rate it badly, but all of them clearly show that the reviewer didn't play the game for longer than ~30 minutes
i never said you were idiots.
and even tho this is going off-topic: yea, quite a lot of reviews rate it badly, but all of them clearly show that the reviewer didn't play the game for longer than ~30 minutes
You're digging yourself into a hole - of course reviewers play games for longer than 30 minutes, and of course we're able to grasp what games are about - it's what we're paid for. And the Star Wolves reviewer didn't at any point criticise it for being like Homeworld.
PC Zone Magazine
Jolt Online Gaming
Jolt Online Gaming
Parallax:
Thank you for putting yourself in a rather vulnerable place on these forums to defend your views. One of the things I like about IV is that the developers are responsive to the users. It is nice to see that the reviewers are, too (at least some of them).
In general, I think that your review is fair. However, I take exception to your argument that the AI sucks. Yes, as an AI, it does suck. There is no pathfinding. Engineers sometimes do stupid things, as do DGs, and squads. However, this was a design decision -- admittedly, one (I think) motivated by time constraints and complexity -- but a design decision none the less. In the game, squads, engineers, &c. are meant to be dumb. They are user controlled. The lack of AI is intentional. If you do not pay attention to the units, they will die.
As to the lack of AI in the DGs themselves, they have a lemming like AI. They will go in a straight line to the best of their ability. At least they are predictable. They can generally make it around or over obstacles. It may take time, but they find their way. If you want better results, you have to be more explicit.
In both of these cases, I understand where a certain amount of frustration might occur, but the game was designed this way. Please, if you are going to criticize this aspect of the game, at least make it clear that this was and intentional decision.
And, as you say, 5.9 really isn't that bad, except that most people see things as follows:
I think this may come from (at least in the US) the tendency to grade on a scale that makes a 90% an A and a 60% a failing grade.
To recap, I feel that the review is fair, but flawed. I think it deserves a 5.9.
xander
Thank you for putting yourself in a rather vulnerable place on these forums to defend your views. One of the things I like about IV is that the developers are responsive to the users. It is nice to see that the reviewers are, too (at least some of them).
In general, I think that your review is fair. However, I take exception to your argument that the AI sucks. Yes, as an AI, it does suck. There is no pathfinding. Engineers sometimes do stupid things, as do DGs, and squads. However, this was a design decision -- admittedly, one (I think) motivated by time constraints and complexity -- but a design decision none the less. In the game, squads, engineers, &c. are meant to be dumb. They are user controlled. The lack of AI is intentional. If you do not pay attention to the units, they will die.
As to the lack of AI in the DGs themselves, they have a lemming like AI. They will go in a straight line to the best of their ability. At least they are predictable. They can generally make it around or over obstacles. It may take time, but they find their way. If you want better results, you have to be more explicit.
In both of these cases, I understand where a certain amount of frustration might occur, but the game was designed this way. Please, if you are going to criticize this aspect of the game, at least make it clear that this was and intentional decision.
And, as you say, 5.9 really isn't that bad, except that most people see things as follows:
- 10 - great
9 - good
8 - above average, but only okay
7 - more or less average
6 or less - not good
I think this may come from (at least in the US) the tendency to grade on a scale that makes a 90% an A and a 60% a failing grade.
To recap, I feel that the review is fair, but flawed. I think it deserves a 5.9.
xander
It looks like you were a victim of your own expectations, Parallax. You may say otherwise, but it looks like you were very much expect a real-time strategy game. Why else would you be criticising it for a lack of strategy, pathfinding, or for possessing a skill-based interface?
The very design decisions you're damning are the ones that are being praised elsewhere.
The very design decisions you're damning are the ones that are being praised elsewhere.
I really don't mind any negative review, and neither should any of you. As long as you enjoy the game yourself, it doesn't matter what others say.
Oh, and for the record:
http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/pc/darwinia
http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/925872.asp
Darwinia IS a good game.
Oh, and for the record:
http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/pc/darwinia
http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/925872.asp
Darwinia IS a good game.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 14 guests