@NX75: X3 is WAY better than that mess Rebirth is. The only gripe with X3 is the less than friendly interface, especially when it comes to manage more than your playership, but scripts and mods have gone a long way in addressing that during the years (Litcube Universe first and foremost).
Admittedly, the plot(s) too are kinda lame in the old X games as well, but they really aren't the meat of the game.
Rebirth has probably irreparably killed the franchise, but a trip back to the older titles is very well worth it.

@xolivierx If I were you, I'd wait. After a few (very few...) hours, once the novelty wears off, you just feel like you are playing a lesser (and a bit messier) version of Civ V: which still is better than most other things around, mind me, but when you already own Civ V... what's the point?

@bpforprez Got to say I agree with most of what you wrote. It's not a bad game per se, and some additions are welcomed, like quests (although they could have been a little more interactive, all those "quests" that boil down to simply "choose A or B for passive bonus X or Y" are nothing more than a nuisance), it's just not really what you would expect from a CIV title (and yet it's little more than a reskin). Everything feels sameish: the map, civilizations, resources, techs, wonders etc like you say all feel just random and hastily put together, simply an excuse to have a +1 food here or a +1 science there, no explanations given, nor any satisfying graphics (Great Wall anyone?). The game sorely lacks in both presentation (honestly, the map is a blurry mess) and in the ability to make all the supposedly new content feel interesting and worth the bother. While this, to some extent, can be excused given the futuristic setting, it really feels there was little to no effort at that.
When you add to this how it's - gameplay wise - way more limited than the current full package of Civ V, as it was expected... heh, there's not much saving it left, at least at the moment.

It's indeed quite polished as a product, and I'd say it deserves the more than decent score, but overall I'm having quite more fun with a definitely less polished but way more original and better presented Endless Legend. Although what I'm really going to fall back to, yet once again, is Civ IV + FFH/Master of Mana/CtC et similia. It's been 10 years, and I still go back to either that or AoW Shadow Magic when it comes to more tactical oriented 4x... I'm beginning to lose hope.

@Wildwolf124 @LogicBomb47 Well, considering the reviewer is literally ignorant about the franchise plus he has obviously barely played even this one game he was supposed to review (he doesn't even know about class specific units, which he'd know if he'd got to at least mid game in a quick scenario), I'd say the adjective "ignorant" is kinda well deserved and appropriate.

Seems to me the reviewer really has no experience of the AoW franchise. The review on the whole comes off as quite superficial (and more than a bit chaotic) just vaguely listing the basics of the game in a not very cohesive and thought out order, but what most is lacking here is comparisons and contextualization. How does the game compare with its predecessors? Is the complexity, variety (and, well... fun) of the tactical combat superior or inferior to them (that the variety of races is inferior we all already know)? Are there more or less abilities as there were, and are they meaningful as they were? And what about the strategic component, is it less or more detailed than it was in AoW2?
Does the game stay true (and how much) to its root, and if it does, does it improve on it and how do these fundamentals fare 10 years after Shadow Magic: have them aged well if we compare them to the current competition?

I could keep going, but you get what I mean. We know what a turn based strategy game is, thank you, and this review feels so generic and superficial it almost looks like its describing the genre rather than this specific game, which is the sequel of a series so relevant it would REALLY deserve some better insight. I'm sorry but this is, simply put, a bad review, regardless of the score: it's not telling me ANYTHING that really matters when it comes to decide if it's worth my money or if I'm better off sticking with Shadow Magic's Brave New World.

@dynasty919 That's some great logic here:

@Synxos And where exactly was I "defending gamespot reviews", like a fanboy, too? For what I'm concerned, you can write something merely (and blatantly) good is an unmatched masterpiece on your bathroom mirror (just next to that "welcome to the world of AIDS" scribble) instead of here or anywhere else, I'll still call you an idiotic fanboy.

If it makes you feel better, Kevin also mentions some "great writing that doesn't rely on references to the show to be funny" about a script that basically is the polar opposite of it, pure self referential fanservice (not that it had to be anything else for such a product), so I guess that makes it even regarding this neglected attention to detail (which, btw, means... what, exactly?). Rejoice!

@Gravity_Slave It's easy to do, really, to give this game "only" a good score you only require to be immune from fanboyism.

Actually, the real issue at hand is how it's become customary to give outrageously high scores to pretty much everything that doesn't completely suck, as if any simply "good" game has to be called a masterpiece. We've come to the point any rating lower than 8 is somehow equivalent to saying that a game is shit. Which pretty much makes giving scores totally useless, we'd be better off just giving a "good" or "bad" badge.

@goggles123456 @kadatherion So I should gather from this we are allowed to rudely, derogatively joke about Carolyn's private preferences, as long as we can say we were not totally serious? Because, you know, that's called trolling, which is pretty much what has happened in the first place.

@Upat3am @kadatherion Definitely, for the individual bias. Statistics, though, are another thing: if something is a minority in a specific system, a relatively rare occurrence, that thing is unusual.

Still, I don't see how being insulting towards a religious minority (or calling people stupid... even though they definitely looked so in their comments) helps the case of someone who (with more than a couple good reasons) just faced a shitstorm for defending a coworker from sexist insults, inviting people to take a couple chill pills and refrain from gratuitous attacks and discrimination..

It seems quite... well, stupid to me. Not as much as the Amish look to me, but still.