Why is EndWar getting so many mixed reviews??

[john_chi]

I can't understand why there are many reviews that give this game an above average score. Is this just one of those games that you may either love or hate? Like reviewers either "get" this game or they don't "get it"? Reminds me a lot of how Full Spectrum Warrior and Operation Flashpoint were reviewed. Above average ratings, but had just enough fans to appreciate them.

[FourthCatalyst]

As with anything it's personal preference coupled with previous RTS experiences.

I'm not a hard-core RTS player and I'm having fun.

There are bugs and gameplay aspects that could be improved.

Some things I liked:
-Ability to battle on a Global scale (WWIII)

-Customizing units/abilities/camo even though there are only a few options

-Voice Command (works 90% of the time for me)

-Combining Voice Command with the mouse (I find myself clicking more then talking but the option to talk makes the game more immersive)

Some things I disliked:

-Matchmaking (hard to find a populated game/waiting takes a long time sometimes)

-I would have liked a main chat lobby or match lobby that showed current games and who was playing.

-Type chat in the lobby before a game

-More unit abilites/ranks

-Rewards for accomplishing tasks (Achievements)

-Graphics could be more detailed

-More depth to the characters (Maybe the ability to choose/customize your Battalion Commander-Maybe have a faction Specific General like the trailer)

Overall, it's a simple game. Nothing ground-breaking but still quite enjoyable. Fast-paced action and challenging player vs. player matches.

All I was looking to get out of this game is enjoyability and I got it.

This is just a personal opinion, I'm not defending the game or the devs. http://media.ubi.com/us/forum_images/gf-glomp.gif

[BTR74]

My #1 complaint with this game is the butchering of the story http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

[Astalano]

Originally posted by BTR74:
My #1 complaint with this game is the butchering of the story http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Which is why they advertise the book on the back of the game manual. ^^

I think they just tried to complement the book really with fantastic gameplay and leave the story to it.

[BTR74]

yeah, but I thought the game would fill in the gaps of the story (eg: why/how did Iran and Suadi Arabia nuke each other? What are the politics and government of the EF? What were some examples of the tension caused by the Freedom star?)
Plus they made the Russians the steriotypical villians when the devs initially promised that each side could be considered both good or bad, and some wired things like renaming the internet the "extranet" and having teh Balkans region fall into anarchy

But I do still think it's a good game apart from that

[SumoX]

Here's my personal guess why EndWar PC is getting mixed reviews.

There are just some gamers/reviewers out there that cannot accept that this game hit consoles first. The ones that have given it good scores played the game for what it is. The ones that pan it hard are upset because it doesn't play like a traditional RTS.

I originally went to the Steam forums to discuss this game, but it's overrun with people just bashing the game (most of which who haven't played the game), which is why I came over here. I accept that EndWar isn't as deep of an RTS as some other ones. And it's true that there are some legitimate issues, but nothing as bad as what I've seen some people spew out about this game.

For the record, I work at a small PC gaming website and posted my review earlier- I gave it a 4/5. I really did want to give it a 5 because I did have a lot of fun, but again, it's true that there are some issues that hold it back.

By the way, about the lack of story....while I understand why there's not a very structured story during WWIII, after beating a campaign, the ending is....rather underwhelming. I wish Ubisoft Shanghai would've put a little more thought into what the world would look like if a particular faction was victorious.

[Lige-]

Originally posted by BTR74:

Psome wired things like renaming the internet the "extranet"

Although these terms are very similar, they are, in fact, separate types of networks.

ex?tra?net
–noun
an intranet that is partially accessible to authorized persons outside of a company or organization.

in?tra?net
–noun
a computer network with restricted access, as within a company, that uses software and protocols developed for the Internet.

In?ter?net
–noun
a vast computer network linking smaller computer networks worldwide (usually prec. by the). The Internet includes commercial, educational, governmental, and other networks, all of which use the same set of communications protocols.

[BTR74]

ooh, that makes some sense, but my stance on the story itself remains the same http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

[HK6]

I will tell you exactly why this is getting mixed reviews. The community (people that have played the game for more than 2 hours) give you the truth. The game is great but has no support for tons of bugs that shouldn't be in the game to start with. The press (reviewers paid by Ubi give it a good rating and only play the SP for 2 hours or less) give it good ratings. They point out all of the good (which isn't much) post the review and forget about it.

[Aquattro]

Because it's not that good. WIC was better and it is still more fun now. EW is repetitive, you end up using the same units over and over ( ChopperX2 tanks and APCs) so much noise for nothing new frankly.
I am disappointed.

There is no strategy to speak of, no flanking, no outmanouvering, nothing...the units just sit there and fire, you can't even oprganize them so that they face the enemy offerning stronger armour (the front of tanks)or have them backtrack to cover their backs.

Artillery can shoot targets 50 feet away, so realistic...Bombers are waiting in the clouds, dropping 4 seconds after you call for a strike.


I am at level 14 and so far there wasn';t a mission requiring a particular strategy, they all feel the same. WIC was much better in that.
Beides the beautuiful voice of Alec Baldwin keeping the story together bethween missions.

And don't get me started on the User Interface, it looks out of an arcade game of the 80's with those huge buttons and 4 confirm dialogs for each action???
Even quitting EW is a pain in the ***. Wich is why I ctrl+alt+del the game every time.
Also with such system requirements a test screen would be useful to see the different settings result wiothout having to restart the campaign.

What a waste of money.
The whole thing is just childish and too simple to be called "real time strategy game" it's more a FPS with a different prospective.

Don't buy this game.

[john_chi]

I've beta tested WiC, Company of Heroes, and both Dawn of War games, all good RTS games. I play a lot of RTS games, and I'm telling you, ENDWAR is a damn GOOD GAME. It's got presistant upgradable units that you can take online, how is that not "deep"?

[DevoutSoulEx]

Originally posted by john_chi:
I've beta tested WiC, Company of Heroes, and both Dawn of War games, all good RTS games. I play a lot of RTS games, and I'm telling you, ENDWAR is a damn GOOD GAME. It's got presistant upgradable units that you can take online, how is that not "deep"?

+1

[john_chi]

Originally posted by Aquattro:

Artillery can shoot targets 50 feet away, so realistic...Bombers are waiting in the clouds, dropping 4 seconds after you call for a strike.


Soo you have a problem with this game because it's realistic??

And stop comparing EW to WIC please, there's no need for that. One game is not trying to be like the other. As for "repititive" units, I guess you could say that's another aspect of the "realism". In the modern world, there are usually only ONE type of main battle tanks in a combat zone. It's like calling the Abrams tank a "repititive" unit. There's no need for 10 different types of Main Battle Tanks, when one type can to do all the jobs. That's what the upgrades are for.

[Aquattro]

What you mean "there's no need for that" (bethween EW and WIC) evolution happens also in games, and one expects one title to be better or at least equal to one before, especially coming from a bigger company like UBISOFT...
I've been playing games for a lifetime and I love a good game as much as you, I got my copy the day it came out with big expectations, I'm just not happy.
I'm fine with the M1, I meant more different units, not different tanks, even if in WIC you have for example light tanks, Jeeps...to mix it up.
But it's not that, I feel that overall the game lacks the feeling that I was expecting, a TAD of realism like artillery range, even better with artillery out of sight how it would be in reality. I don't expect my arty to shoot at 150 feet as I don't expect my tanks to fly...it's just funny...

And less repetitive missions.

It's ok..I'm playing it..I just imagined better than it is, frankly the voice command doesnt' mean a lot to me, and unfortunately I can't play it high settings, so I'm sure I'm missing a lot of eye candy too.
I was looking forward to HAWX too as an arcade sim, but after this I would think I'll get the same surprise with that too.

as I'm sure I'll get a copy when it comes out

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

EDIT:

On the other hand I don't want to bash the game for the hell of it...FInal judgement after campaign completion...and looks like it's going to take a while
Game on!




Originally posted by john_chi:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aquattro:

Artillery can shoot targets 50 feet away, so realistic...Bombers are waiting in the clouds, dropping 4 seconds after you call for a strike.


Soo you have a problem with this game because it's realistic??

And stop comparing EW to WIC please, there's no need for that. One game is not trying to be like the other. As for "repititive" units, I guess you could say that's another aspect of the "realism". In the modern world, there are usually only ONE type of main battle tanks in a combat zone. It's like calling the Abrams tank a "repititive" unit. There's no need for 10 different types of Main Battle Tanks, when one type can to do all the jobs. That's what the upgrades are for. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>