Now that the dust has settled, who was in the wrong here?
 Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
 Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
Now that the dust has settled, who was in the wrong here?
Now that the dust has settled, who was in the wrong here?
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
The corporate reviewers are ALWAYS in the wrong.
7.5 sounds about right. 7.5 is what journos give to something you shouldn't buy unless you're really into it and that's what I:R is.
This is so annoying. I wish reviewers would genuinely use the full range of scores instead of giving ratings like they are grading an essay in a US high school.
Hard to say, I only played post Marius update. To me imperator is one of the best paracuck games.
>deliberately hides the metacritic user score
7.5/10, solid attempt at shilling, focus on corporate marketing reviews lends a lot of intimacy to what can quickly become abstract.
You’re a moron, OP’s entire point is about the difference between user and critic reviews. He didn’t “purposefully hide” the user score, it just wasn’t relevant to his point since he can just use the steam reviews.
Sorry but I'm reviewing your post and it sucks because you're a gay
>he didn't purposefully hide the user score
OP you literally have a bloated Metacritic score in the thread pic, don't call other people moronic when you yourself are brain dead
This is some advanced autism. Calm down, guy.
No anon, you're just dumb as a box of rocks.
Firstly, I'm not OP. Second, any non-moron with any knowledge of video game reviews would be able to tell at a glance that the “everyone else” box is exclusively game journos. Take 2 seconds to think of what the implications could be here by the phrase “everyone else.” Is OP trying to say that steam reviews are only indicative of a small minority of players, or maybe is he simply making a joke about how game journos are out of touch?
Then take a look at these posts here:
which al explicitly mention game journos. It sure seems like other anons aren't struggling to see what the point of the OP is about.
>OP's entire point is the difference between user and critic reviews
>"steam reviews"
>"everyone else"
Either you're giving OP way too much credit or you're OP trying to backpedal your moronation.
Either way you're a homosexual.
An 8 from a videogame "journalist" is basically a 4 from a reasonable person. There's no contradiction here.
Game journalists opinions are utterly pointless. Everyone knows that they are paid shills. Even if they weren't, they simply suck at games and are unable to actually criticize any gameplay mechanic with care. They can't hold their own opinions and don't have them. They are assigned to review a game after a game from different genres and series. They don't even have the time to familiarize themselves with game let alone series and sometimes even genre.
They are redundant when there are dedicated autists for particular series with their own blogs or channels. Since they are so focused, they can put many hours into a single game and so have indepth knowledge about its mechanic. They can properly compare it to previous game in series and to actually similar games instead of calling everything "Skyrim with guns" .
Even then only negative reviews are of any use. If review is positive then it's pointless to read its dicksucking. If it's negative you can actually read proper reasoning as to why said person didn't like it.
User score is useful for determining broad reception among masses, but not necessarily quality of a game. If it's positive, it means that there is no controversy and developers did their job properly and thats it. If game is being review bombed, then it means that developer/publisher fricked up something massively and annoyed his fanbase. In such case its worth it to investigate what caused such reaction. If reception is overwhelmingly positive, it means that fanbase is euphoric in some way. This doesn't mean all the time that game is actually good, but it means that developer did something that really pleased the fanbase. So it's also worth to check out what caused this. Maybe dev simply parades his correct political opinions around, which has nothing do with quality of the game itself.
Imperator 1.0 was unironically a fun game.
Imperator would easily be in my top 3 paradox games if it got like 2 more updates. I’ve always liked it, but it really needed a little bit more content and a little bit more quality of life fixes.
My dream would be that it would get many updates and expansions and maybe even other start dates. A migrations era campaign would be kino.
There needed to be an economy and trade reform. I hate that importing goods makes you money and slaves pay tax for some reason.
Still the best modern paradox game after HoI4, Vic3 and CK3 shat the bed.
I just want a game where I can chill as a mountain tribe, without the hassle of spamming royal marriages every few minutes.
Imperator is basically that, even though it tells me to frick off for playing said tribe literally with game mechanics.
>capital is alpine climate, mountain province withour major river or harbor
>10 pop capacity compared to 500 in fricking albania
>not even an avalanche mechanic in the game
Got to mod this heavily to even start feeling satisfying.
>Not a single mention of Hallstatt Culture in the game
>map painting simulator
>has one of the best visual maps
Honestly 8/10 is right.
absolute turd at release
but it's good now, too bad Paradox axed the development early, I hope the same thing happens to Vic3
The game has a lot of good aspects but it sucks because it's way too easy to just blob out of control. The game should have focused on the fall of Rome with Attila being huge as frick to match Rome and then eventually all the massive waves of barbarians coming to frick you up.
I use it to rp Rome's historic expansion. Even to the extent of conquering the Italic cultures as feudatories/tributaries to mimic Rome's Italian allies.
There are additional ways to handicap=RP but it's not for everyone.
I am the same way. I love Imperator and I was bummed they axed it. I even thought it was decent and fun at launch, though buggy. I think a lot of the hate it got was pent up frustration with Paradox's DLC policies for other games, and it's hard to say they're wrong, they've ran EU4 and HOI4 and Stellaris into the ground and CK3 and Vicky3 were meh and awful, respectively. I'll give them one more chance with EU5 to make a good game, but sadly nu-Paradox isn't what it used to be.
>listening to critics and game journos instead of the players
frick you anita sarkeesian