[REVIEW] Gameinformer: 8.25

Cruel draconians?  Has he ever played Magnar, I wonder, in all the 50 hours he spent on FE? 

Will this game ever stand on it's own as opposed to sitting in the shadow of MoM? I agree that 50 hours is barely enough to scratch the surface of the game, but it is enough for somebody to form a decent oppinion. The score of 82 is not bad, we'll see what's next on the reviews to come.

When it comes to fantasy 4x, MoM is the benchmark. It's only natural that every fantasy game made be compared to MoM until it's beaten.

I dig the setting’s post-apocalyptic vibe, but beyond that the world feels like a paint-by-numbers collection of post-Tolkien fantasy tropes.

Help me out here, which race are the hobbits?  Didn't realize JRR wrote about elemental beings and river slags. 

I think definition of "soul" is subjective, but otherwise that review was spot on.  I'm glad the reviewers are being honest.  Brad will take an 8.25 any day of the week.

8.25 is a hell of a review honestly. It's above average - great. So I mean that is what I think of the game. 

8.25 (presuming that's out of 10) is a very respectable score.  It actually seems a bit high given the excerpt you quoted.

Checking versus other games ... I am surprised Warlock:  Master of the Arcane scored an abysmal 6.75.  I've never played it myself, but every review I've seen has rated it quite high; that's one and a half whole points below FE's score.  Civilization V:  Gods & Kings scored 8.5, a mere 1/4 point more than FE ... though for some reason, the original Civilization V scored much higher at 9.75 points 5 days before it even launched (yes, I know reviewers get advanced copies ... but surely Adam Biessener did not get all the patches more than a year in advance!).  Seriously, with the diplomacy and AI ridiculouslness, the slow production / fast research doldrums and the numerous weaknesses and bugs in gameplay, Civ V vanilla was 1.25 points better than G&K at launch?

But I digress ... 8.25 is a very respectable score.

I actually never played magnar in the beta on purpose.  I'm having a blast and getting creamed at the same time.

That guys a good writer and some of the stings are just how he words things.  It was definitely honest.

I dont agree with the story part being poorly written.  I think its written well, but like a lot of fantasy people throw out, the reader knowing how to pronounce ( or pronounce in your head) a characters name is the first part to drifting into the fantasy.  The second is knowing them.

I read the bible often, but even I have never made it through more than a couple chapters in Numbers.

Shito, if I've ever got above 8.25 in my entire life...  My wife would bive me a mid-7 and my 13 yr old, I would be lucky to get a 1.5.

Your a rockstar!

I agree with most of his criticisms, except that he needs to know about Stormworld if fantastic races are his personal taste. And the "moderately high" replay value was way off. 8 unique races and a serious map generator force me to conclude a very high replay value. 

don't forget the customization of those sovereigns and races.

"Soul" is, of course, in the eye of the beholder. I agree in general about not escaping from post-Tolkein fantasy tropes--but that's nearly impossible if you want people to relate to your game immediately. (Also, re: Henry Morgan, just changing the names and shapes of the creatures doesn't get you out of it.) That said, I disagree that it's any worse than MoM--I think that MoM gains by (1) nostalgia and (2) not trying to flesh out the races either in text or graphics (8-bit and all that) so the player uses more imagination.

As far as the writing goes, it is, unfortunately, rather poor. Again, this is IMHO, but having read a large amount of, well, everything in my short time on this planet, the writing is par for the fantasy course, which is, tragically, not all that great on the literature scale. Not saying that I could do better, mind you, but Shakespeare it ain't.

I don't post often, but I wanted to chime in here:
While I agree with some of his points, I think the comments about lacking a "soul" are just plain misleading.

Part of the reason the Civilisations in the "Civilization" series have a personality is because they're based on pre-existing Civilisations.  It's not a real comparison.  "Master of Magic", on the other hand, doesn't do this - however while its races were somewhat original, they ultimately one dimensional.  Nostaglia helps, but honestly: you knew everything you needed to know about them from a picture.
Fallen Enchantress tries, with varying degrees of success, to walk the line between straight up "Alien" and twists on fantasy cliches.  But, at least to me, they each have their own "soul" and are interesting enough to encourage me to play around.

In fact, Fallen Enchantress as a whole has a strange drum beat all of it's own.  It's flavour is both unique and interesting, while being familiar enough to not outright frighten.  Much like any new flavour, it takes time to grow accustomed to it.  Having been present during the entirety of War of Magic's and now Fallen Enchantress' beta programs, I assure you: Fallen Enchantress' soul is a thing of beauty.  It's strange mix of RPG herbs and 4X spices will be remembered fondly.

And my word, the music.  I cracked that slider all the way to the right.

Thats a very good score, for me I can agree with any score that is a 8 to 9/10.

I agree with sean above with the replay value thing, to me it seems like one of the games real strengths is the replay value. I dont agree with the game having no soul either.

 Again though, 8.25/10 is a very good score, I think if FE averaged around that when more reviews are out stardock would be very happy, especially after the scores Elemental got. Its definatly alot better of a game!

My point is only that if he put in that many hours, and can still consider the "cruel Draconians" of MoM (which I still play from time to time, using the latest unofficial patch) to capture his imagination better than Magnar, then he really doesn't know the game as well as he wrote.  Because there is no way he couldn't take note of Magnar's ability to create slaves, use them as army fodder, and sacrifice them for health in battle.  That would capture anybody's imagination.  His surprising ignorance of Magnar--a major character, and certainly imaginatively conceived--seems to show that he either played very few FE races and didn't bother reading the lore, or didn't play the game anywhere near the 50 hours claimed.

And notice the Quarter-to-Three piece: http://www.quartertothree.com/fp/2012/10/24/here-lies-the-empire-of-magnar-latest-casualty-of-fallen-enchantress-ai/

They're rightly critical of the AI, but they know what Magnar's up to, and they're clearly caught up in the "soul" that this review denies FE.

Yeah,  cant take much from that review.  Took longer to come up with the words for the review than to play it.

It literally took me a year to figure out why I like this game so much.  50 hrs?  I've spent more than 50 hrs making and eating sandwiches at game breaks during this beta.

2 full days.  Eh,... That's nothing.

50 Hrs

='s ~100 sandwiches

sandwich ='s 230 cals +150 cals in chips.

Tell me the last time you've consumed 38,000 in calories just on your breaks from a game.

Thats 44.19 KWH.