One of the things I noticed when watching a review of Clockwork empires was the fact that the buildings didn't have as many modules or items available to be placed as I expected. Now obviously the game isn't even being tested outside Gaslamp with the exception of a select few, but I was curious how "complete" that build is compared to what is expected for launch.
You see, comments like this is why it's not been released yet... How can someone review a game that's in such an early state? You should NEVER place any importance on what someone else says about a game so early in its development. It's not even EARLY access yet, it's PRE-Early non-access (that's not really a thing, I know). I got into a similar discussion about a different game recently (one that actually has now been released). It's not good to nitpick and judge a game based on preconceptions of what it SHOULD do. It's one of the main crimes of bad reviewers, to compare a game to what (in the reviewer's mind alone) the game OUGHT to have been and tear it apart on that basis. No, the proper way to review anything is to ask the following questions: 1. What was done? 2. How well was it done? 3. Was it worth it? For a game, that means, not comparing it to other games, but to look at it as a completely independent entity, and decide if you had fun playing it. THAT'S the only important factor. The fact that you played other games and had more fun with those other games might influence your opinion, but it's not actually a fair way to review something. Had I been a complete alien, I could come in to look at a game like chess, and decide that it sucked because it didn't have siege engines to attack the castles, and you couldn't ransom the knights once they were captured (after all, that was what was done back then). But that would be judging the game, not based on what it is, but based on a fictional idea of what it should be. And that's completely unfair. The game I compare it to, true, may be more detailed, may have more 'things', more kinds of pieces, more freedom. But Chess may still be a far far better game than it. And THAT'S why it's unfair.
Or just maybe the OP used 'review' instead of a more accurate word, like... 'preview'? Typos happen, brainfarts happen. No need to go on some ridiculous rant over nothing.
WHOA. WHOA. WHOA. Did the forum grump just tell somebody else not to go on a ridiculous rant over nothing?!?! ...I think I just fainted. But yeah, review might have been the wrong term to be used by the OP, but buried in Haldurson's rant were some good points about why some people / places just aren't good for early access.
Actually, I was more concerned with his observation/opinion that there wasn't enough stuff that you could put into buildings. Techgamer was making a review of sorts by that observation, and I'm trying to tell him to not judge based on this -- A) it might change, and B), even if it doesn't change, it may still be a great game -- Even if that's all there ever would be for the game, it wouldn't be fair to make any judgements about it on that basis alone. You have to look at the game on its own merits (after it's released, of course). To repeat what I said earlier, Chess doesn't have a lot of stuff in it, yet it's still a great game. picking at a detail like that is tantamount to reviewing a game in comparison to something in your imagination, rather than judging it on its actual merits. The game doesn't even exist yet, and you haven't even played it, and already it's not good enough.
You pretty much nailed what I meant. I already figured that the current builds that have been publicly shown are a long way away from the planned final version, I just was curious on how close we are to something that approaches the final product's amount of content, which is:
I didn't mean to sound like I was ranting (maybe I was, though -- I'll try not to in the future). I find that I'm often misunderstood, so sometimes I go to extreme wordiness in order to make sure that I am absolutely clear on what I'm trying to say, probably unnecessarily so.
