From Ian Morris’s review of Europa Universalis III:
For the sake of this example, let’s presume we’re playing as sleepy old England. To invade another country, you must first declare war on it, which is done by clicking a button. After doing that, you must then find a way of amassing an army and getting your soldiers onto enemy soil. As each of your provinces can only build one unit at a time, and building a unit takes at least 70 days, you could be in for an incredibly long wait before you get a chance to invade.
Well, you could build the army first, you know. And there is a speed button.
He concludes with:
It’s just, without anything there to hold your hand through the first few years, a game with this much depth will be completely inaccessible to the average gamer, and because of this it’s hard to recommend.
Yes, but did you like it, Mr. Morris? Apparently not (5/10), but I wonder how much work you put into it if you complain there is nothing to do and only talk about making war. Colonization? Conversion? Sure, it’s not for everyone, but you were playing England, man.
Part of the problem with the review, I think, is that it buys into the idea of EU as an RTS series, and then applies RTS logic to the game (“You can’t arrange your squads, and you have no command over the battle at all.”) EU3 is not an RTS, except insofar as it happens in pausable realtime. This is why genre definitions need to be bigger than “turn based”/”not turn based”.
None of this means that his opinion is useless. It is useful to be reminded of the uphill climb in most Paradox games, and games should be penalized for being tough to figure out. EU3 is the most transparent Paradox grand strategy game yet but I can see how some people wouldn’t get it.
heh. EU3 has to be one of the most accessible Paradox games…I wonder what this guy would have thought of Victoria?
I think this is a pretty bad review. He’s basically saying that this game sucks because it fails as an RTS. It’s not an RTS. He’s coming at it from the completely wrong direction. It would be like reviewing Diablo purely as a story driven role playing game.
I get the feeling there’s no “distance” between what this guy likes and his review, if that makes any sense. His personal preferences show throughout the whole article, instead of telling me what works and what doesn’t in the context of EU3 and strategy games..all I get from this is that the guy really likes RTS games and fast action type games and EU3 fails to meet his personal tastes.
And honestly, not taking not of the speed button? I call BS. Having a speed button negates half of his complaints about have to “wait”. I think he either didn’t see the speed function or ignored it since it didn’t fit his narrative that the game is “slow”.
I get the feeling there’s no “distance” between what this guy likes and his review, if that makes any sense. His personal preferences show throughout the whole article, instead of telling me what works and what doesn’t in the context of EU3 and strategy games..all I get from this is that the guy really likes RTS games and fast action type games and EU3 fails to meet his personal tastes.
And honestly, not taking not of the speed button? I call BS. Having a speed button negates half of his complaints about have to “wait”. I think he either didn’t see the speed function or ignored it since it didn’t fit his narrative that the game is “slow”.
At Gamespot and other sites, many of the comments about the EU III demo were apparently made by gamers under the mistaken apprehension that the game was an RTS in the manner of The Battle for Middle Earth or Age of Empires and that it was in dire need of better graphics and better resource gathering. One fellow warned that EU III was the sort of game that you needed to (horrors) read the manual to play. These comments are wrong, just…irrelevant? Missing the point?
Build an army _before_ you invade? What an absolutely insane idea!
“His personal preferences show throughout the whole article, instead of telling me what works and what doesn’t in the context of EU3 and strategy games..all I get from this is that the guy really likes RTS games and fast action type games and EU3 fails to meet his personal tastes.”
Personal tastes are huge though. This is entertainment criticism and of course you should have the general context. But I read someone’s opinion because I *want* to know what *they* think. The trick as a reader is to suss out what a reviewer’s personal leanings are. There are some people I trust completely on RTS, and some I don’t trust at all because our personal tastes don’t line up.
Reviewing is not about objectivity after all, but fairness. If Mr. Morris had obviously given the game a clear shot and considered why certain design decisions were made and still hated it, I couldn’t call it a bad review whether I agreed with it or not – there are lots of reviews out there that are well written and well considered that I think miss something that I appreciate. (Check the prevailing opinions on Rise and Fall: Civilizations at War and Heroes of Annihilated Empires, for example.) All the many complaints about the lack of historical events, after all, are based on personal preferences, but are coming from vets of the series.
Personal preferences are not to be dismissed as interference – they are the nuts and bolts of game assessment.
Not the first time I’ve seen a mistake like that, if it’s a mis-categorization at play – I recall seeing a posting by a guy who thought Company of Heroes is an FPS!!!! – but it’s inexcusable for a reviewer to be that sutpid.
Pro-G gets a do-over on EU3 // Feb 24, 2008 at 1:48 pm
[…] A few days ago, I linked to the Pro-G review of Europa Universalis III – a review that was unsatisfactory for its bare understanding of the game. After Paradox PR applied pressure to the editor, they got a new review with a more positive impression to be a “second opinion”. Then both reviews were averaged to get a final score. […]