[Video Gaming] REVIEW: BATTLEFLEET GOTHIC ARMADA 2

in gaming •  6 years ago 

Yes, once again it's time to talk about my latest article up on Strategy Gamer:

REVIEW: BATTLEFLEET GOTHIC ARMADA 2

BFGA2Head.jpg


Go ahead and read that before you go any further if you've any curiosity at all. I'm about to talk about some things that went into this particular article turning out as it did.

Done? Excellent. Let's continue.

You'll probably note that this article is not an enthusiastic endorsement. In fact, if you read between the lines, you can probably pick up that I wasn't very thrilled with the game as released – and part of that my editor managed to put his finger on in our after-article debriefing when he noted that I was working off beta-2 and not a full-bore press release of the game, to which I had reply that was what I had, that's what the key he gave me unlocked, and if you look at the other commentary that has been made prerelease on Armada 2, everybody points out that they all got the same build as anyone who preordered the game before release.

That is to say, games journalists received an incomplete build of the game in order to create reviews which were embargoed until just before release. It's not the first time such a thing has happened and it won't be the last time, but it's always a little concerning for someone who wants to make a full report on what is in a game that people are going to drop $60 on before they have to pass the bill to know what's in it.

The last time that I can remember that being the case was the relatively recent reboot of DOOM), where reviewers were deliberately given an incomplete build and it was a bit of a tempest in a teapot. There were real questions about whether the distributor really trusted in the value of the game or if they were trying to hide something. (In the case of DOOM, we seem to have dodged a bullet – it was a very good game that they were playing overly coy with.)

So I had the fine opportunity to start off on the back foot.

Once I got into the meat of the game itself, taking it for what it is and how it plays, my personal feelings didn't improve. Once upon a time, I used to play a fair amount of tabletop Battlefleet Gothic, so I'm no stranger to weapons stats and firing arcs in the whole 9 yards. Armada 2 managed to simultaneously pretend to streamline gameplay while making it really hard to get to information which would allow you to make good decisions in combat. All while wearing the guise of an RTS game. If you're playing along at home, you can already imagine what that turns into: a situation where micromanagement is the only real way to play the game and you have to memorize a whole pile of stats on each ship before you can make good decisions about how to engage with it. The ability to put some ships under the control of the AI and set enemy priority levels should have been a really good way to solve the problem, but in practice because the AI never used their special abilities or put them in really advantageous positions, AI control effectively just let you have them drive around on their own while you try to pop special abilities on every single ship just as their timer runs down.

Honestly? While the visuals are striking and the ability to upgrade ships as you go dynamically is cool, the game falls down on the one thing that again can't fall down on – gameplay. I didn't hate it, but I didn't enjoy it. As much as I really enjoyed the Warhammer 40 K universe, there just wasn't enough meat for me to truly embrace the game and put up with what I perceive to be its flaws.

There are some people out there who are going to love Armada 2, and I wish them the best in the world. But if you are on the fence about the game and haven't really checked it out yet, maybe you want to give it a few months to develop some patches and see if gameplay remains largely the same, and then you can make a carefully honed personal decision.

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

I've never had to deal with an embargo or incomplete versions, but I hate doing pre-release reviews.

Part of what I dislike about it is that you're under a sort of code: honesty to the customers and publicity for the game makers.

I'm of the school of thought that reviewers should save rough reviews for when they are necessary, in the same way that one reserves glowing reviews for the best products.

Pre-release reviews push the need for that balance to an extreme.

Posted using Partiko Android

I don't mind pre-release reviews. I even enjoy doing them. Getting to see something, get my fingers dirty, work into the thing and specifically focus on the aspects that I think will make or break it for people's judgment… I like that.

Now, it just so happens, that a lot of my reviews seem to come out a little more cerebral than most of the gaming press, but I can live with that. Right now I am working out exactly how far I can go with, "no, that you should probably stay away from this" with my current publisher. I have the feeling that they would be generally okay with that sort of finding, as long as I backed it up – which is great.

The real problem for prerelease reviewing at this point in the market is that no one expects the game to be complete or bug free at release anymore. Everyone expects content to be unlocked, day zero patches, and maybe even fairly significant mechanics finally going into place on day of release. Which would be fine if that's what we got to review – but it never is.

If I had my preferences, I probably wouldn't review a game until it's been out for three months so that I could tell people whether it really is the solid game it was promised to be or something else, but in a real sense that's not what people want from reviews. They want to know whether they should buy it today – and today is day of release.

At this point, if you wait six months after release for a lot of AAA titles (and most indie titles), you can get them for 50% off the original asking price – and why wouldn't you? If the game is good, it will continue to be good. If the game is bad, it won't have gotten better in the meantime.

It's a very weird time to be part of the games industry.

Perhaps I should walk back a little: hate is a string word. I enjoy the process of reviewing regardless, but because of all the other concerns that you mention it is hard to know how what you review will match what players get.

I reviewed Shadowrun 5th Edition right at release, and it had some major errors (including the omission of PDF bookmarks) that were fixed by the time I woke up.

And that's in tabletop roleplaying, not even video games.

It definitely comes down to some industry differences as well. Most of my prerelease reviews focused on working with a publisher or media site, while I generally review released stuff independently (or, when I was still a featured reviewer, through DriveThruRPG with publisher comp copies). Syndication gives more touchy political issues and makes you think about how your writing reflects on the people paying you, which I don't personally like.

Posted using Partiko Android