this post was submitted on 06 Dec 2023
8 points (100.0% liked)

PC Gaming

8576 readers
219 users here now

For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki

Rules:

  1. Be Respectful.
  2. No Spam or Porn.
  3. No Advertising.
  4. No Memes.
  5. No Tech Support.
  6. No questions about buying/building computers.
  7. No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
  8. No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
  9. No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
  10. Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
EXiLExJD@lemmy.ca
UncleBadTouch@lemmy.ca
KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com
8
Warhammer 40k Rogue Trader review – a deep but unfinished sci-fi RPG [6/10] (www.pcgamesn.com)
submitted 11 months ago by alessandro@lemmy.ca to c/pcgaming@lemmy.ca
4 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 4 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] sodiumbromley@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

The two biggest complaints in the review seem pretty avoidable to me. The first is that they exploited a bug in combat and then were mad when that broke a quest.

Second is that they said that scaling was odd, with one computer (thickly entrenched 40k nerds are already mad with the use of the word computer instead of cogitator) in an area was an easy skill check to use and one in the adjacent area was difficult to use. That doesn't seem like a red flag to me, or at least, it doesn't seem like that in isolation.

So my take away is that some things will be mathematically harder than other things, and don't purposefully exploit bugs. I don't think this review has deterred me from buying.

[–] alessandro@lemmy.ca 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

So my take away is that some things will be mathematically harder than other things, and don’t purposefully exploit bugs. I don’t think this review has deterred me from buying.

Well, the review did its job, then. The problem would have been if they had hidden these bugs to make the publisher happy: instead, they have exposed issues that you are free to ignore or not, depending on your needs."

[–] Deathsservant@feddit.de 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

The real issue is that review scores are so inflated that 1-6 indicates "bad" instead of any gradual scale of quality.

[–] alessandro@lemmy.ca 1 points 11 months ago

The real issue is that review scores are so inflated that 1-6 indicates “bad” instead of any gradual scale of quality.

This is because digital magazines tend to avoid getting on the wrong side of publishers: preview copies allow for reviews to be already publishable on day one, which is a huge source of clicks/money.