Expeditiions Conquistador review on AWNT

[sullafelix]

Belated review of this game is up on AWNT's blog.

http://www.awargamersneedfulthings.co.u ... eview.html

Thank you

[Orm]

Thank you.

I'll take a trip to the review tomorrow.

[budd]

Nice review, it is a fun but limited game. The traveling got a bit tedious but really enjoy the tactical battles. I'm looking forward to see how they expand on the follow up.

[Rosseau]

I used a cheat, as I wasn't interested in a "camping" simulation. As Budd says, got old fast, and there are plenty of other games, including those here, with same or much better tactical systems.

[Olivia123]

It has been an thrilling trip for us here at the Reason Artists studio, our collective dream is now a authenticity, and it was cheers in no unimportant part to this list of delightful persons.

[ezzler]

I too abstract in poodle. Our commitment for cereal is skate-park incessant.

[Kuokkanen]

ORIGINAL: **budd**

Nice review, it is a fun but limited game. The traveling got a bit tedious but really enjoy the tactical battles.

I've got it and I didn't even go through the island (whatever its name). Game has too much of stupid: even 50 years old starts with 0 experience and therefore can't do anything better than under 20 years old, and player's party seems to be the only ones eating and boy, they deplete food stores real quick everywhere they go. Tactical combat does not hold candle even to XCOM: Enemy Unknown, much less to X-COM: UFO Defense and Jagged Alliance 2.

[sullafelix]

The problems with games and reviewing them is that they are so subjective.

You can see even in this thread that some people liked part of the game and not other parts and their are people who loved the game.

I think it is unfair to judge a game just on your own likes and dislikes.

Take this for an example. If you have a gamer that likes Panzer Corps and only plays that kind of game and then sit him down in front of 'War in the Pacific' he will probably hate it.

That doesn't mean it is a bad game. All it means is that he didn't like it.

I feel that you should present the games facts and let the separate reader choose if he is interested or not.

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: sulla05

The problems with games and reviewing them is that they are so subjective.

You can see even in this thread that some people liked part of the game and not other parts and their are people who loved the game.

I think it is unfair to judge a game just on your own likes and dislikes.

Take this for an example. If you have a gamer that likes Panzer Corps and only plays that kind of game and then sit him down in front of 'War in the Pacific' he will probably hate it.

That doesn't mean it is a bad game. All it means is that he didn't like it.

I feel that you should present the games facts and let the separate reader choose if he is interested or not.

That is indeed a problem with reviews.

However, I think a reviewer should, in addition of presenting the facts, express his personal views. After a while you get a feeling if a reviewer ha similar tastes as yourself, or not. Therefore I think it important for the reviewer to let his likes and dislikes show in the review. To me that is sort of the point of reading his review.

[sullafelix]

You have a point, but I do think that you can tell by the review whether the reviewer is in love with a game or so-so on it.

He shouldn't drag a game through the mud because he doesn't like it. He can state its faults or whatever, without adding vitriol.

I have seen too many reviews that were written just to savage a game.

[wodin]

At AWNT we try to make sure as best we can that the game going to be reviewed is something that the reviewer normally likes..that way if he doesn't like it then those who enjoy that type of game will know maybe best to stay away. There is a review over at Wargamer that is a prime example of a reviewer who obviously doesn't like the type of game he is reviewing and thus rips it to pieces..making the review pretty much pointless for those who do like that sort of game. Esp when you consider the game is looked upon favourably by those who enjoy that type of wargame. It really did a total disservice to the game and the developers. I'm sure most people reading a review would rather it be reviewed by someone who has similar tastes and actually enjoys the type of game they are reviewing and has some experience with the type/genre.

I will state again though we will not lie or gloss over a game we think was poor.

On the whole if a game has got to the review stage at AWNT it will mean it's not total rubbish and most likely worth taking a closer look at.

So Orm you can be sure that the reviewer over at AWNT actually likes the type of game they are reviewing.

[Rosseau]

The AWNT review could not have been more fair or unbiased. Great job. In fact, I would say the reviewer was being rather kind.

I paid for the game and wound up not liking it. I had more fun with the Age of Decadence demo, which is very choice-driven. The game has also been heavily discounted at times, so people who "think" they will like it, should grab it when it's $5 again.

[wodin]

Thanks

We try our hardest to make sure we are fair. We certainly don't want to dupe people into buying a game that's rubbish.

ORIGINAL: rosseau

The AWNT review could not have been more fair or unbiased. Great job. In fact, I would say the reviewer was being rather kind.

I paid for the game and wound up not liking it. I had more fun with the Age of Decadence demo, which is very choice-driven. The game has also been heavily discounted at times, so people who "think" they will like it, should grab it when it's $5 again.

[budd]

sometimes i think it just boils down to a gamers expectations. It was a short diversion i got some fun out of which was fine for the couple dollars i paid fot it, i didnt really expect much else.

[sullafelix]

Rosseau, thank you for the kind words.

Liking the game or not really depends on how much you like to 'slog'

Some people have no trouble with games that want you to, others cannot stand it.

[Kuokkanen]

ORIGINAL: sulla05

I feel that you should present the games facts and let the separate reader choose if he is interested or not.

You've got a point. Game has good amount of dialogue and text about Indians, their culture, and interactions with coming Europeans. Best part of the game, and worthy reason to get & play it. But if you do, take at least 3 hunters to your party to hunt for food. 2 won't cut it, I know that from experience. And as I mentioned in my previous post, merchants have very limited supply of food and player's party can eat all of it in matter of days, especially if you don't take hunters for some self-sufficiency.

[sullafelix]

I want to explain my 'slog' comment.

Right now I am playing a mod for one of the 'Stalker' games. I am having a blast, but I am forced to do some 'slogging'.

By that I mean those foolish little quests that many games have ie. 'get so-and-so a donut'.

Some games are full of them some have very few, but we have all dealt with them.

In any game I have played that has RPG elements in it, they are there.

You have to do them to get your character and party strong enough to deal with the next higher bad guys.

Some gamers have no problem with doing these sometime inane quests, other gamers delete said game in disgust.

To me they are not really that annoying it is just part of the game.

[Kuokkanen]

ORIGINAL: sulla05

I want to explain my 'slog' comment.
...
You have to do them to get your character and party strong enough to deal with the next higher bad guys.

More commonly used term is grinding