I am not gonna review the game until its fully patched, for now the game has big amount of bugs, well most of them can be fixed..BUT, there are issues I am sure wont be fixed since its part of the new gameplay mechanics, such as buildings walls and tower, and maybe no AI for skirmish game mode.
At least let us give them the chance to fix all the bugs and maybe some balancing issues and see how the game will be.
I agree with most of the post here in the forum, FF did a very big mistake by releasing this early and charging 50$, the consumer will sure get annoyed.
Now FF should pay for bad reviews they are getting.
One more thing, it seems FF was depending much on promoting thier game through Facebook, ironically the number of likes dropped from 45k to 34k after the release.

Rody wrote:

QUOTE:
I am not gonna review the game until its fully patched, for now the game has big amount of bugs, well most of them can be fixed..BUT, there are issues I am sure wont be fixed since its part of the new gameplay mechanics, such as buildings walls and tower, and maybe no AI for skirmish game mode.
At least let us give them the chance to fix all the bugs and maybe some balancing issues and see how the game will be.
I agree with most of the post here in the forum, FF did a very big mistake by releasing this early and charging 50$, the consumer will sure get annoyed.
Now FF should pay for bad reviews they are getting.

With all the comments of bugs and problems I do believe they are there and agree with you on that Rody. Glad to see someone put it in a respectable and polite way as well for a change. I just think I and some got lucky to not have encountered the bugs to the level most complain about. I'm quite sure, given a month or two, they will fix all the major bugs like Stronghold 1 and Stronghold 2 had at first release and add new features that were previously not in it. That would be like Firefly to do just that.

As for the 'pay for the bad reviews'... it is already hurting them as it hit mainstream about the complaints and problems. The price of rushed work is often bad reviews and hurt income in the long run.

greyfalcon wrote:

QUOTE:

And how are we in the wrong defending that we haven't had any real issues and feel the game is good, more difficult that the previous installments but good?

I just don't get how some people get so angry and have their panties in such a bunch over the fact that we haven't had any real problems and feel the game is good.

I'm pretty sure more people are angry that you're trying to defend the game than they're angry that you're enjoying the game. Let's be honest, plenty of small companies release fantastic games. It's fine if you like Stronghold 3, but you can't make excuses for the company if lots of other people have complaints with it.

So far, I've seen one review of the game give it a 70. The rest were in the <50 range. Are you really that baffled to find that other people are going to criticize you when you say the game is good?

When you try to defend the developers by saying "Oh, they're such a small company, this was just to be expected." or "Programming is hard to do, I can't blame them for having bugs. I think this game is great, and it'll be even better with patches!" You're just throwing yourself out there to get flamed.

People bought this game with the assumption that it would have the presence of an AI, Co-op, since it was advertised as such on Steam, and functioning multiplayer. As far as I can tell, it doesn't have the first two, and the third isn't working well for a lot of people.

I understand you still like the game. But Stronghold 3 didn't develop any AI for Skirmish or other online game modes, when it was not only regular for RTS games in current times, but they themselves had released AI for their games after Stronghold. Yeah, they didn't mention it was included, but they never said anything to divert the assumptions of the majority of people who thought it would be commonplace after Crusader and SH2. They apparently claimed they requested Steam to remove the Co-Op features from the game description several times, but for some reason never thought it would be a good idea to warn anyone that co-op, in fact, wasn't available.

You have every right to enjoy the game and support the company despite their lack of professionalism with this release. But don't act like you can't understand why everyone wants to drown out your voice of praise when it's a definite minority.

im not baffled. fact its, if the game is buggy, dosent matter how good or how bad the other parts of the game is, people will think that its garabage.

god emperor wrote:

QUOTE:
im not baffled. fact its, if the game is buggy, dosent matter how good or how bad the other parts of the game is, people will think that its garabage.

Ok, let me clarify a bit... I am baffled by the viciousness of some people with how they attack others and the extreme they go to attacking the developers and people not having the issues they are.

If they leave the viciousness out of the complaints, that is understandable. But you're right about that god emperor, no matter how good the rest of a program or game is if a person runs into a bug that gives them problems many will think that it's garbage and wasn't developed properly.

Honestly i don't care what the games problems are as long as it runs for me. I got stronghold 2 and loved it and i still play it. I'm going to wait though until most of the bugs are fixed and possibly skirmish mode is added. I also don't support the bashing of other people and the developers, people are entitled to their opinions and as long as the developers are dedicated to their game and fixing and adding to it then they shouldn't be torn apart by people. I'm not a fanboy, i just have more respect for peoples time and effort put into anything.

greyfalcon wrote:

QUOTE:
god emperor wrote:

QUOTE:
im not baffled. fact its, if the game is buggy, dosent matter how good or how bad the other parts of the game is, people will think that its garabage.

Ok, let me clarify a bit... I am baffled by the viciousness of some people with how they attack others and the extreme they go to attacking the developers and people not having the issues they are.

If they leave the viciousness out of the complaints, that is understandable. But you're right about that god emperor, no matter how good the rest of a program or game is if a person runs into a bug that gives them problems many will think that it's garbage and wasn't developed properly.

thank you. people will find ANY reason to complain. its human nature.

greyfalcon wrote:

QUOTE:
But you're right about that god emperor, no matter how good the rest of a program or game is if a person runs into a bug that gives them problems many will think that it's garbage and wasn't developed properly.

It's not one bug. And can you honestly say that selecting and ordering a unit to attack/move works properly? Yes, people are being nasty to the developers, but I'm sure a lot of them don't do that for any other game. This game screws up the simplest mechanics that drive an RTS. Hell, having unit action buttons with no code behind them is another glaring example of it. Pile the rest on top of that, and is the surprised outrage that hard to understand?

greyfalcon wrote:

QUOTE:
god emperor wrote:

QUOTE:
im not baffled. fact its, if the game is buggy, dosent matter how good or how bad the other parts of the game is, people will think that its garabage.

Ok, let me clarify a bit... I am baffled by the viciousness of some people with how they attack others and the extreme they go to attacking the developers and people not having the issues they are.

If they leave the viciousness out of the complaints, that is understandable. But you're right about that god emperor, no matter how good the rest of a program or game is if a person runs into a bug that gives them problems many will think that it's garbage and wasn't developed properly.

Guys, comon...if the rest of the program or game is good? You say that as if it's just a few bugs people are running into and that's it. The issues everyone has with the interface, food production, lack of announcements when you're being attacked, the 'weak walls'...these aren't bugs people are complaining about. These were either development choices, or actual lack of code.

Is the game playable, and beatable? Obviously, since people are finishing the game. That doesn't mean it isn't staggeringly difficult for anyone new to the series. How many people do you think were stuck on economic mission 2? Part of that is because of the bug with wolves. The other part is because they programmed wolves to kill people in one to two hits, didn't program villagers to fight back when they got attacked, and you start out being attacked almost immediately.

I don't know why you act like the game is good, and somehow everyone else is just getting all these bugs. Some of you think the game is good, and other vets or newbies think that it's the worst Stronghold yet. I'm sure they'll improve stuff with patches, but it's foolish to act like a couple bugs are holding this game back.

yes all of those things you describe are bugs. the game ITSELF is okay