I think it's worthwhile to have a whole discussion on the grognardism.

What I don't like seeing are games that put in superficial features to appeal to grognards to cover up very very simple games while sophisticated games get hammered as being "Streamlined" because the UI doesn't inundate the player with knobs, levers and pointless data.

Pass means pass as in - I don't want to move this turn.  The TAB key lets the player move to the next unit instead.  While someone is welcome to disagree with this mechanic, we've been doing it in our games for 20 years and like this functionality. It's not a bug. 

I think the case could be made to add a new state to the unit (like have the unit go to GUARD mode) when you hit the space bar which ignores it for the rest of the turn but keeps its moves the same.  But referring to a design element you don't like as a "bug" is exactly the kind of thing that is grating in the way you write.

--

As for the review. I think I'll pass on asking for the flag to be removed. Me thinking you are arrogant does not indicate whether we are friendly or not as developers. We're not friendly to you, mainly because you've spent your time being insulting and mischaracterizing our game.  

The biggest problem with your writing  is that you speak as if your subjective opinions are universal truths. Besides being off-putting, it creates an inaccurate representation of whatever the subject matter is.

Do you mean objectively untrue statements about the game itself (not about friendliness of developers, etc.)? If yes, could you elaborate on this? I don't own the game and I'm genuinely interested.

He speaks about a lack of plan on replayability that is untrue, as the plan is found in many dev logs and on the official forums everywhere. The sovereigns, spellbooks, heroes and quests are all very much capable of changing the replayability of the game.

He also speaks about the autoresolve change like it is forced on to nearly every battle. Again, that is not true. It only occurs when the player is decidedly stronger than the opposing army.

There were others and I don't have time to go back right now, but I will later. Sorry

XwereWolfX, I appreciate you taking the time to read it. I agree saying 'no replayability' was an intentionally extreme choice of words. Replayability is about how likely you are to come back to a game, how it makes you feel, how engaging it is. Bejewelled for example has tons of replayability for my mum. To me, less so. It is a purely subjective topic, entirely opinion. I stated my opinion (in anger) and I intentionally used a ridiculous and obviously impossible extreme 'none', like saying a game is 'infinitely' replayable... although even that can be technically correct. i.e. play it once and never come back. No replayability. But the strong language here is used to provoke debate or discussion and is on an entirely subjective matter.

The Autoresolve change I see as part of a wider curbing of tactical combat. A shift to autoresolve being the expected form of gameplay. Giving you the number for combat ratings, though it seems wonderful is, in my opinion, something that can lead to more autoresolved battles... I said why and gave a more complete reply in both the comments to the review and in the early access discussion topic.

It is quite strange having to specify with every line that this is just an opinion, especially in a review by just one unhappy customer. I didn't expect many people to think the reviews were written by the developers in full and complete knowledge of each stage of development... merely "How does it feel to you? Mr/Mrs Paying customer, did you enjoy it? Why?" If you aren't expected to put a thumbs down, why is that one of the two options? Should it be removed?

[edit]

Frogboy, I appreciate your further clarification. I have done more technical writing than reviews and it is hard not to sound like I'm writing a textbook. But concerning personalisation, it's hard not to take something like this personally:

"Me thinking you are arrogant does not indicate whether we are friendly or not as developers. We're not friendly to you, mainly because you've spent your time being insulting and mischaracterizing our game."

I may be confused elsewhere, but here you clearly stated you were unfriendly to me, find me arrogant and that I insulted and mischaracterized your game. I want to be able to correct mischaracterizations and remove overt insults where it is grossly inappropriate. (Even if it were humorous like 'you're a meany poo')

That's what's so amazing... I really never expected to be the worst and most insulting review you've ever had. It was meant to be a WIP, regularly updated review cataloguing the changes in the game. That was my initial intention, I just found the game very frustrating.

[edit]

I don't know if it'll help but if I were able to edit the review I'd happily throw in lots of: "I think...", "I found...", "I worry..." liberally, I just assumed those were implicit in a personal opinion, informal public review. I'd even turn it into a song if that would help. I'm quite willing to bend over backwards, I really am if it's needed. But I will still explain and clarify myself. (even post up an un-edited copy of it on the early access discussion, so that I can't be accused of hiding or swapping the text for some malicious purpose). After today I'd much rather have just deleted it, but very few of my concerns have changed, only the wording of them. Nor has my opinion radically altered, I need to see the game in a more advanced state for that.

The *only* thing we're looking for is to not have personal attacks (i.e. don't make it about me or Stardock, or the people who make the games). Just focus on the game itself.  That's all we're asking.

How you write your review is your business. Freedom of speech and all.  You don't have to state something as your opinion. You can even state things that are wrong. I just don't want to be personally attacked or see my development team attacked. That's all.

I want to get involved in the discussion, but you are using to many big words.  

Watching my lumbering Iron Golems move is very fulfilling.

I liked using the Jandor's set (Saddlebags + 2 others?) for bonus uncolored mana for my Fast Colossi of Sardia deck, with 9/9 Trample each.  Durn AIs always crumbled before I got 3 in play ...

And some permanent-removal to kill Aladdins.  I hate Aladdins.

More deeply, it is fun to spot an opportunity, design, build, and play a clockwork combination, and see it work the way you intended (or nearly so).  I loved it when human opponents accused me of cheating because I beat them so bad, and I said "no, it's right here in the online help pages, here here here and here, I found it in 20 minutes the first day I read them, you have to build it like this", and they blush scarlet and have no further words.  I loved it even more when my anonymous opponent used every trick I knew, correctly countered every trick I used, and afterwords we discussed them, and she says "well sure, they're obvious".

I have a cold, bottomless disdain for the teeming hordes of players who have not learned any of the combos, bring their noob game to the big dog circuit, lose like noobs, and complain bitterly that the game is out to get them.  I take their points, and say "gg, it's here here and here".

I was a dev, I've run a public Beta, and I still design.  That forces me to be precise.  Enumerating the space of design alternatives is part of that.

I've found that it's a good way to interact with other designers, developers, and players.  At the design level, it broaden the scope of thinking to encompass the design space of alternatives, and then you can judge the tradeoffs, and maybe target a niche.  At a Beta level, it filters the proposed changes by considering costs (to implement), design intent, and game balance.  As a player, it drives us to play the meta-game, i.e. scour the rules, numbers, units on the board (or cards in a CCG), and devise combinations, strategies, tactical tricks, and other aspects of game-play.  I'm a geek at heart, and I love crunching numbers (and rules) better than the other guy.

OK, that's your experience.  I'll do it my way, you do it yours.

     As pertains to reviews of early access products, any product that is brought to market and sold to consumers should be fair game for a critical review. Early access is not and should not be used as armor to insulate a title from criticism, as long as that criticism is fair and truthful. One must keep in mind that early access is not a promise that a finished, polished or working game will be provided to the customer, thus it is imperative that people provide a critical evaluation of the product in question.

     History shows us that the early access path is veritably littered with the following: Abandoned and incomplete games, games perpetually in early access, games that release without many of their promised features, games that are unplayable due to bugs and games that are simply cynical cash grabs. Though I do not believe any of those apply to Stardock or this game, I will say that I am extremely disappointed to see the same bugs that were unresolved in FE:LH rearing their ugly heads in Sorcerer King: Odd character and road pathing on the world map, multiple enemy units occupying the same square on the tactical map, mouse cursor getting frozen in an inappropriate form, completion of unfinished moves upon reload...etc.

     As I purchased the game, it should be obvious that I do not believe that SK is simply a reskin or DLC. That being said, it is not hard to understand why some folks hold that opinion. It is the same engine with all the same bugs. Combat seems to be functionally identical to FE:LH. The game mechanics have been dramatically streamlined, while the game is currently lacking most of the core features that differentiate it from its predecessor. Fair or not, there is a perception that removed features, and indeed even the primary conceit of SK itself, are merely an effort to cope with several nasty recurring AI foibles and bugs that could not be resolved in FE:LH. Like it or not, the perception is present and the onus is on the dev team to correct that perception. I have tried with my personal friends, but they are not biting...all I can do to sell them is to show them that the age old bugs are squashed and that the core mechanics are different and enjoyable. Only the dev team can provide that, and I sincerely hope they will.

I was busy over the weekend and only today came back to find a message from Frogboy unblocking my review. So thank you very much for that. I do appreciate the opportunity to try to write something different and hopefully now a little less personal. With more about the difference in dream and vision and the legacy of Elemental. Keeping the emotion but not being quite as angry... I think. It's hard to tell. I cut lots from that first review but it still came out far harsher than I intended. Maybe this one is even worse than the first... I can't tell.

I wrote at least 5x as much as would fit into a review just to get some of my ranting thoughts out. Whole sections on movement, pathfinding, mechanics, balance... it was a very long list... comparing SK to other games in each category with examples. Sections on pricing and DLC... all are (I think) valid issues but I've tried to put less little quibbles over current mechanics and more of an overview of the entire series and what made me personally upset. Because I do think I have views shaped from my disappointment over Elemental. (I've only recently been able to get FE and LH working... Elemental played brilliantly on my laptop, it met the original specifications but after a few years of driver conflicts and issues coupled with the advancing system requirements... well my laptop would crash during the design screens after each graphic *upgrade* it only got worse... So I've (not) been playing that stunted version of the game due to my own shoddy equipment and low funds. It's only now I've been able to come back to all of it with fresh eyes and a working computer that can play the game to victory. Hence years of silence and a sudden burst of reviews, opinions and suggestions as I've had a chance to dip into all the fun new games released.

Bemral [on point 6, pricing] - I'd love to be able to see clearly how much money a game has made and needs to raise to add new features. Also how much value for money a game represents - £/h and similar stats. Perhaps that would encourage you to tip a game that has obviously given you lots of enjoyment but still needs money for new features. I'd certainly buy that DLC for a few games I know. Also I do like Kickstarter for the kick it forward concept... donating profits to other projects to help the smaller, bold ideas. Pricing games is always a bit of black magic, since they have effectively infinite numbers of copies to sell, because of that it's completely opaque as to whether a game has recouped its costs, crashed and burned or flown off the shelves. Or how much it should cost, or how much its cost should change over time. Muddied even further by sales, bundles, special offers, currency conversions and regional pricing. (The odd Australia tax to give one example). Once a game has no more updates planned I think the price should be slashed, mostly to represent that you aren't supporting the game from that point onwards but merely buying someone a nice house. Which isn't quite what you probably had in mind when you handed over your cash.

Peregrine23. I think I was taking it too personally. I just don't like to see people ganging up on each other or attacking entire groups for any reason whatsoever (racial, religious, or merely for voicing different opinions). I was standing up for not just myself but a lot of other people that were just talking, comparing games and chatting on steam. Without malice or insults that I could see. If I had seen it (I didn't see it, except in my own review) I would have spoken up there, not here. I couldn't even change my review there so I had to speak up here.

I think people should speak up when and where they see venomous/trollish posts... talking about it here is obscure, opaque and hints without explicitly stating what was offensive. It helps no one to stay silent when abuse is going on... even if I'm the one labelled as abusive I want people to tell me - so therefore took a lot of the blame personally. I just have the view that leaving an opinion unvoiced is almost criminal, for without voicing it you can't argue with it, without argument you can't be convinced to change, or be forgiven or for differences to be reconciled. Silence then, is, in my twisted logic more harmful than harsh words. I just value honesty above all else... lawful stupid, able to do bad/stupid things if and when they stick to their own warped code of conduct. Or perhaps true neutral. Not intentionally good or evil, questioning rules while having personal rules... ah, I hate labels. Even something as simple as alignment.

[edit]

Peregine23:

On the second point. At what point, during a game with constant development over many years, with different versions, updates, DLC and expansions is it ok to review it? The reviews all clearly state, as does the rest of the page early access. It is not merely implied but outright stated all over, reviews are not of the final product. I agree completely with the car building analogy but I don't see the logical connection that because it's an ongoing process it is exempt from reviews, or excused failings in design that would not be excused in a single final version. Surely the best time to complain isn't a year after a game is released but a year *before* a game is released, that's the only window in which changes can still (in theory) be made. The age of journalism as you describe is dead. The world is very different now, the rules for early access etiquette and things like steam reviews aren't set in stone. They are rough, harsh with lots of sharp edges and I expect them to change every year from now on. Kingdom Rush for example... the freemium game with a very modest price has the top rated negative review that starts: Awesome game! but... (paraphrasing liberally because I can't remember it). Which, I think shows that people would love to have more options than merely +/- Thumbs up or down. Really it's saying A+, 10/10 a great game but poor value for money because £6>£0 on Kongregate or Armor games in the Kingdom Rush example. Two different questions and answers forced awkwardly into one binary state. Steam needs more ways for users to analyse the success and failure of a game than the % of 12,000 user reviews that are one of two binary states. Or number of sales. Videos, LPs and longer reviews do that, they're a completely new form of journalism that I adore. (I've just never done an LP or video review, so stick to typing, it's also lots faster).