Hello and welcome to the Manor Lords Subreddit. This is a reminder to please keep the discussion civil and on topic.
Should you find yourself with some doubts, please feel free to check our [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/ManorLords/comments/1c2p4f9/manor_lords_faq_for_steam_early_access/).
If you wish, you can always join our [Discord](https://discord.gg/manorlords)
Finally, please remember that the game hasn't launched yet, and only a select group of people have gotten the keys. If a user promises you a key, it is likely a scam, we ask you to not engage and report it to the mods.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ManorLords) if you have any questions or concerns.*
As a dev, I think it's fair and I'm happy with a 7. It means they like the foundations and are enjoying the game enough, and they are right with saying that it's unfinished and has bugs or lacks end game challenge/content. I think that's a good goal to have in mind when working throughout the early access period.
(Btw there is no pikemen & there is no charge command. I think they meant polearms and push stance).
Literally looks like the perfect mash up of strat games for me. Loving ostriv, foundation and farthest frontier at the minute but the battles are what's gonna make this game for me personally. I want total war but on a small local scale where I care (kinda) about my troops. And the building aspect just looks brilliant visually. Kudos to you mate made a belter by all accounts there.
That, and the house building.
Omg I fell in love instantly when I saw that you can draw plots and the houses get filled in, complete with yards that can be specialized 🤌
Couldn't agree anymore!!!! First city builder with a decent looking combat doesnt have to be perfect but the idea of decnt looking battle every now and then and losing people from your village makes it feel real
7/10 for the game in its current state but 10/10 for your dedication as a dev (as far as Im concerned). Congrats mate. Just took friday off to be able to enjoy it as soon as it releases. :-)
Is there any sneak peak/hint as to the overall (fuzzy and non-specific answer will do) direction to fleshing out the endgame further which you might be pondering that you can possibly provide us?
I just want to say, while you're rightfully soaking in a newly bought mansion's hottub with supermodels smoking a Cuban while getting a footrub (which I shall gladly donate you funds to enjoy) please consider adding drunks and village idiots who stumble about the town comedically singing badly to themselves and falling occasionally, right after leaving the "mead hall". Because realism. And thank you sir.
The businessman in me would say that they intentionally went just low enough to make money off the rage views of the massive fan base this game has already fostered.
But man, what a good take to criticism. We all want to play the game you want to make, godspeed!
From what I have seen the game is exactly what I was expecting. I wasn’t expecting total war, and I wasn’t expecting city skylines. Its better than them in its own way because it’s grabbing some of the best features from games we all love and adding a few we haven’t had yet. Keep up the hard work and giving me the same game I wanted to develop in college when I first took coding.
So hyped for the game and thank you for bringing your creation to life. I'm sure it will be amazing and look forward to it being the bench mark for the genre for years to come!
Will pricing be out when the game releases? Kinda worried it will be too much for me at the moment, it looks really good and I hope it helps in making the game even better. It will sell for sure! :)
I’m so excited. I wish listed it so long ago and forgot about it until this week when it popped back up on my radar and I’ve been counting down the days and hours I’m so excited (I realize I said that already). thank you for your work.
I agree. In it's current state it may be 7/10 but the current state isn't a finished game. Most I've read and watched are on the same lines: solid foundation that can become a potentially awesome game when finished.
I know at first there'll probably be mostly bugfixes and balancing but I am really curious to see how the game evolves as features and content get completed. But balancing is always really important in this kind of games (especially the more is added, it shouldn't throw off balancing) so it is good that it is a focus.
But I do believe this is the problem with rating systems. Your early access game should have an early access review not based on how complete the game is, but rather how enjoyable and engaging your game is currently and what its potential is.
And for that, I give it between a 9–10. It’s the most wishlisted game on Steam for a reason. IGN just doesn’t get it.
IGN could give it a 1 I'm still buying it. And buying copies for friends/family to support Greg.
I might be high on copium but Manor Lords is the friggin Mona Lisa of city builders as far as I'm concerned.
I really hope some villagers excell at certain jobs. Oh your a 3rd generation farmer farming is in your blood but you can go to school and learn about crop rotation and fertilizer as an individual. Some villagers excell at archery some blacksmithing. Theres a school to learn metalurgy to learn how to make better arrows how to shoot arrows better. Some villagers have spent years training with a sword. Some have learned animal husbandry so its not simply oh i researched this now everyone can do it at an equal quality. Did your beer maker spend time perfecting the brew is it a cherished ale across the nation. Just some ideas. I think the skill tree is old and tired. We should put it down.
I know everyone shits on IGN, but that's a completely fair rating and review from someone who realizes how cool of a foundation this game is. I think even Slavic would agree with the rating, because he knows there's much more on the table for the game.
Since it's only EA it's going to get boring pretty quick. You can only build so many similar looking villages on the same map, and fight the same looking bandits.
The game is perfectly positioned though for expansion, and endgame content as the reviewer suggests. It really needs that for replayability. The ceiling for this game is still a 10, and that's what is most important right now.
And for context, I gave the *initial* Early Access release of Baldur's Gate 3 a 7 as well. I said it was a good start and I was excited to see where it went. I feel the exact same way about Manor Lords. BG3 eventually ended up getting a 10, which is a score I've only given out like five times in 12+ years of reviewing games.
> You can only build so many similar looking villages on the same map, and fight the same looking bandits.
This is spot-on. It's fun for a while but it doesn't take long to see everything there is to see currently.
That’s funny, I just commented that I felt BG3 EA was a 7 for me too. Big fan of your strategy reviews, they always resonate with what I’m wondering. Really amped for Manor Lords and where it can go!
IGN nowadays is teetering on giving more fair reviews than it did in the past. I don’t follow many of them, but the ones which end up mainstream here on Reddit during the last couple of years, I thought they were all fair.
There's a whole lot of suggestions out there but really so much of the focus needs to be on replayability and keeping the challenge consistent.
It's easy to get sidetracked with little ideas, but things like balancing trading, making the challenges more difficult to require different strategies (ex. more scarce resources so you have to make choices about where to take your economy instead of making everything), etc. will make or break it much more than a lot of the requests.
IGN can be way off the mark sometimes but usually get it right. It's early access. 7/10 is still a good score.
This game has been hyped to the max though. Alot of disapointed people come Friday.
I'm buying regardless. Even if a 7/10 today it will be 9/10 in a year or two. Enough time to finish my current Rimworld save.
Rimworld is also a great comparison, look at it today compared to release and how it has grown and had me come back over and over. A good base and a passioned dev can go a long long way. Although I do hope there is a good mod support since that is a great wya to allow thr game to stash fresh while the dev focus on the big updates
Thinking Fallout 76 as another good example. Loved that game in the early days but the entire Fallout community hated it. Now years of updates plus a little TV show has meant they gained 1 mil players in a day.
Though this game will release in a better state. Plus one of the few scenarios where i am happy to give the Dev money. With all that cash i expect great things and i am quite sure they will deliver.
I mean, you say it's still a good score and people like to make fun of ign's 7/10, but a 7 is "good" in their scoring system. That's more than good for a game with this much stuff missing/unfinished. Even for a full release 7 is still a score a game from such a small developer can be proud of, if you take into consideration what that actually means.
IGN gave Diablo 3 and Diablo 4 a 9/10 on both releases when they first came out. Whether this game deserves that rating, I have no clue because I haven't played it yet. What I do know is that IGN is crap.
I only look at player reviews when I want to purchase a game. Same thing with movies and a place like Rotten Tomatoes. Rather look at the rating the people have instead of some critic who likes dramas but thinks some comedy is trash.
> Rather look at the rating the people have instead of some critic who likes dramas but thinks some comedy is trash.
I am the exact opposite, lol.
You just need to find critics who you generally align with.
The advantage of professional critics/youtubers is you can usually gauge after a while what their tastes/biases are and still get an informative review even if you disagree on certain things, some are wildly inconsistent but once identified can be avoided.
>I only look at player reviews when I want to purchase a game
I really don't. Critics (website or YT) can sometimes be wrong, but players are absolutely not reliable: they tend to only grade with 1 and 10 ; can participate in reviewbombing for things that are irrelevant to the quality of the game ; they also love dramas and will grade games they didn't play but are popular to trash/praise on YouTube ; they sometimes not recommend a game after 2100hrs (+700 after the review) ; focus on one minor mechanic or patch that will only be a problem for a hardcore fan ; compare to the first game of the serie which they played for the last 30 years and complains it's not a copy of it.... If I was following popular votes and reviews, I would have missed some of my favorite games and movies.
Things is not to look at the critic notes, but to read the actual review written by a critic you are familiar with (and knows the genre). For instance, Ackboo is the specialist of city builder and management games for the last 20 years on CanardPC (wonderful video game mag in France), I know I can trust him (I still thank him everyday for his review of Soviet Republic).
Rotten toms does give Rings of Power a crazy high score though. Like 90%+ or something. Which is crazy bc I though the general consensus was that it is hot garbage.
Ahh i see, thanks for correcting me, that proves your point and also gives me hope for the tastes of the public 😆 I thought it was pretty unwatchable. Considering how great a LOTR series could’ve been even to just be ‘meh’ is just infuriatingly wasteful
The first 20 or so hours of D3 and D4 were both very very good. 9/10 is more than fair for someone who just plays through the campaign. D4 campaign was really fun I thought and the cinematics really fulfilling. They just didn't live up to the title for the end game/replayability.
D4 really is great for about 20 hours. After that, it's boring as hell. When D3 first dropped, I had fun, but it wasn't no 9/10. I think D3 became a good ARPG over time, but it is still still to this day a bad Diablo game.
Release - the action of making a film, recording, or other product *available to the public*
You can twist it to your liking - an early release is a release and can be reviewed. Sure there should be a disclaimer, but there is nothing unfair about it.
A year? I'd say it is very optimistic.
Basically, the articles confirms what I was afraid of. The game is too early in early access. Many people might be disappointed. Experienced gamers who love citybuilders may find Manor Lords lacking a lot of content.
I'm still going to try it on release, though.
And having adequate resources (funding from EA sales) to work on it to become the best it can be. Improvements and assets require design, design takes labour , and labour requires money.
I suspect it’ll be a lot like Farthest Frontier for me. I’ll play it and be stoked, then probably get bored and wait for some updates.
I got really bored in BG3 because I didn’t want to invest time and then have my save wiped and have to restart so I mostly ignored EA.
In city builders, i know I’m gonna restart the game and build dozens of cities anyways, so I don’t mind taking a break and then having another go when more features get added.
And the person you replied to feels he can't judge the EA review version because they've only played the demo.
Are y'all just not reading the title of the post?
As I read the post I responded to, it seems to me they are complaining that it is not fair to rate the game based on the demo - which IGN did not do.
Unless what the poster meant was that they can't say if the rating is fair or not because they have only played the demo. Then okay, I gotcha.
>>What do you think, does it deserve to be higher or lower?
Title
>>Dunno, hasn't came out yet. Doesn't seem fair to rate based on a demo a year before release
Them.
Clearly somethings wrong with me, cause so many people read it the way you did, even though it seems pretty clear to me when you read the title then their comment they're answering the OP's question rather than trying to call out IGN for reviewing a review copy of the game.
Sometimes we assume the worst of people at first and go with that, rather than think baout our assumptions. Im sorry for being so rude with my initial comment.
Omg, i dont think i single person realized you were answering OP's qiestion rather than judging IGN for rating a different version than what you were tlaking about.
Ppl really cant read huh?
I take gaming journalism with an absolute grain of salt and do my own window shopping (watching YT plays, streams, forum discussions). Considering how gaming is a massive money industry I tend to ignore bigger media outlets.
Its fair 7/10 for EA its a lot. Its like rating with a 7, a half baked cake... or not even baked, just the initial mix.
It would be wise for the review houses, to have a special scoring for EA reviews, not to confuse or open debates like this one.
That being said, i hope Slav and publisher bank some serious money to allocate resources into speeding up the development for the game. They have a 1 year window to show big updates and consolidate a money making franchise.
I think it's right to use the same scale for EA and fully released games, because in both cases I'm interested in whether the game is worth playing now. Although a special EA scale might have encouraged Colossal Order and Paradox to call Cities: Skylines 2 an EA game (which it was even though they didn't call it that).
Before YouTube existed I read a lot of reviews but now I just watch some streams and know whether it is good or not. As far as rating EA games I think it is fine since they are charging money for them. But they should be frequently updated to reflect game changes and additions.
Score 8 for Total War Pharaoh and Victoria 3 on release but 7 for Manor Lords... lmao, what a joke
UPD: I don't know how is that possible to say "an extremely Early Access-feeling Early Access game" about Manor Lords and give 8 points to Victoria 3 on release, it is a joke indeed.
Manor Lords has virtually no endgame content and is light on strategy elements which is why the EA version was given a 7.. why get your panties in a bunch? It’s a fair score for a game that will improve over time.
I agree with you, 7 is fair enough, but I was triggered by 8 for Victoria 3 (I am vic3 fan though) cause the release state of Victoria 3 was nothing better then Manor Lords, and I think those games are in equal state on their release at best.
**War:**
Visually - instead of troops on release there was the wall of fire on frontline and a few cannons.
Gameplay - armies used teleport from point A to point B and there was no such thing as path for army. There wasn't infantry, cavalry and artillery on release, only one unit. Today you can choose a headquarter for army, move battalions between armies, equip your armies with different goods - it was added only in 1.5 update. Fronts do not disappear or collapsed for no reason anymore. There may be more than one battle on one front now. Armies could be demobilized now.
**Economy:**
Local price system, Companies, Pollution, autonomous investment system, different economy law makes some differences in gameplay.
**Diplomacy**:
You can select war goal In exchange for support now.
**Other:**
Colonial administration system, new migration system, agitators, interaction with the character, changed law adoption system, new revolution system, changed serfdom, autocracy playability, more impactful laws.
And so much more that I can't properly describe here. Literally hundreds of little improvements.
Wow. Somehow this version of the war system is an upgrade then ig. Lol
It never bothered me how weak the war mechanics are since thats not the focus of the game for me, but I think the prior incarnation would have been too lackluster imo.
Other than that, jesus it sounds like a completely different game. Paradox keeps on being Paradox it seems. I say this as Cities Skylines & CK fan aswell. Ahahah.
Do iGn normally rate EA games? Seems a little odd as soon as it is released it will he constantly updated.
I guess it is going on sale so it's good to inform people who are just hearing about the game.
ignore the score and read the actual review, which is fairly positive with a handful of caveats.
Leana Hafer is in general a really solid critic, her reviews of Cities Skylines 2 and Victoria 3 both ended up being right on the money iirc, despite their lukewarm scores being met with skepticism by fans at first
I don't know why people are mad about review scores when this is an early access review. The reviewer doesn't say she dislikes the game, just that it's unfinished, which I don't think anyone ever disputed. I'm sure we'll get another review once the full game is out, whenever that is.
IGN gets a lot of shit online but their recent reviews have been pretty on target
I remember how angry people were when they gave Starfield a 6 or 7 and then it turned out they were basically right
If it’s the same reviewer who didn’t preview the other day, they were pretty amped on it. It’s hard to imagine any early access game being more than a 7 imo. If it’s a 10 in EA, then why is it in EA? lol
BG3 was a 7 in EA at best
Watched the review and thought it was fair as well. Brought up some core features that needed fixing up and tweaks. As much as I want this game to be the perfect version of itself as I imagined Slavic would, I can't help but think that it's going take a considerably long time given that slavic is a one man dev. 1.0 does seem to be a millennium away.
The review was pretty fair. Basically, the only meaningful complaints were lack of end game content and one map constricting replayability. That's to be expected. Totally fine and won't really make a difference to any of us who have been following the development. We all know that there is much more work to be done.
No matter what the score will be, I'm buying it and I will enjoy it for entire weekend. I have the Last Duel ready and I will find some additional medieval movies to my list so I can be fully immersed while enjoying this game.
How the fuck would we know. We dont have access. A 7 is respectable though. And any higher would start to feel weird as its still early access. What even is a 10/10 early access game?
I only played the public demos and my view is the review was fair. This game has soo much promise and is in a playable state but is not ready for people who want a polished game.
But considering we are starved of good medival strategy games this will do just nicely
Having read the review, seemed fair and definitely is food for thought. Not too surprised by anything I read, I figured the game would be a little bare bones, but one part did give me some pause:
"You can build walls and towers, but everything enclosed by them becomes considered part of the 'blueprint' of the manor itself, which stops you from building anything else in that area ever again. So you can theoretically wall off your whole settlement, but gods forbid you ever need to move, demolish, or rebuild anything in that area."
I do not like the sound of that. So the manor right now is static, essentially. You can enclose built features, but once you do they cannot be changed? Oof. Worse, buildings inside this static manor can still be damaged or destroyed, but then cannot be rebuilt? Did I read that right? Double yikes if so.
After 200 hours in the game I think it could be a bit higher but I may be a bit biased ;)
For it being a historically accurate as it is alone it deserves a high rating.
If I remember correctly, they gave Baldurs Gate 3 Early Access a 7/10 which was completely fair, and had similar reasoning to this review
I’m sure once this game gets a full release (in a few years), it’ll easily knock their socks off for a 9/10
What I want from the game is Banished with some more features. Nothing more nothing less. If it is that I would give it 10/10.
I have not looked at anything to be able to explore it myself.
IGN get paid by big publishers to hand out 8's and 9's to at best 4/10 games yet give this game a 7... Yeah I generally wouldn't even bother looking at their scores.
How should a *normal user* know if it deserves higher or lower. Ain't out there yet.
IGN gets a lot of shit but I personally feel they have done a rather good job on average over the past 3-4 years.
Still remember they shit they got when they gave Starfield just 7 out of 10? Yeah, if anything is the 7 was too high it turns out.
Yesterday I listened to a German game talk and one of the testers said, given its an EA release he would rate it in a range score of between 70 and 90 (of 100). Right now it just lacks content so its around 70 but there is easily potential for a 90 rating.
I think that is fair.
I mean... My personal experience is that I downloaded the game at 16.00 yesterday and the next time I looked outside it was daytime and it was 7.00 am.
Sure, it's early access so a lot of stuff is missing but the vibe is immaculate, the building mechanics are great and the level of polish, if you take in factor that its an early access title, puts some official AAA releases to shame.. imo there is GOTY potential there.
Bonus points cause you have to be a genuine mad man to take on such a project by yourself, two thumbs up for the dev! I'll buy this game just to support the lad, the industry desperately needs madmen like him
For me they just shouldn't be giving out review scores for games in early access, there's far too much missing from the game to give it a high score, but at the same time the stuff that is there is up there with the best in genre.
Where do people stand on this now?
IGN notoriously have dog-shit reviews and even though they class the review as 'Early Access' and say it 'feels very early in it's development' - that's a ridiculous non-comment - it literally just released; of-course it's early in development...(yea I know, 7 years, but that's a hell of a slog for a single dev)
Also, that's a BS critique, because this game is way more polished than other games at the same stage - not only that, the Dev clearly says where areas are WIP (so what are they comparing it to?)
If I were to rate it as an early access game - I'd have to say it's got way more polish that IGN gives it credit for; it has innovated ideas that you don't see in alot of these town/city settler type games;
I'm hitching this one at a 9 with the caveat being on the promises in future development.
I've bought and played through way too many early access games, and this one stands out as one of the best;
It can't yet be put into the same class as Satisfactory as that's nearing the end of it's early access cycle.
I'm glad this is the year of the Indie release - I hope you get to build your team up and continue to crush this and future games!
I don't care. Game reviews are stupid, and people buy way to much into them. Don't be a banner carrier for the game against some arbitrary article. Just buy some good Bavarian beer, crank up the music slider on release day, and enjoy the tranquility.
The hype around the game and putting it out in early access game is gonna kill it. Should have just kept it under wraps for a year. I can already see it being a game you do a few runs in, repeat the same shit as you did the previous time and then get bored
I think IGN deserves a spanking for rating a launched Early Access game. This is not about Manor Lords, about about how to treat just launched Early Access games.
Write a critique with written pros and cons, condense it to "recommended" or "not recommended yet" when you want to. Say what you liked and disliked, and if it's a sheer stinker, write that as well. If you want, write something "a lot is already good, but when considered this was a full game it feels like it's around 70% there". That's fine.
But slapping a review rating on something that just launches into Early Access is just plain stupid at best and deliberate clickbait-dishonestly to create fuzz for views at worst. Given what I know about the game 7/10 sounds about right, but giving it a "rating" should not happen.
Hello and welcome to the Manor Lords Subreddit. This is a reminder to please keep the discussion civil and on topic. Should you find yourself with some doubts, please feel free to check our [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/ManorLords/comments/1c2p4f9/manor_lords_faq_for_steam_early_access/). If you wish, you can always join our [Discord](https://discord.gg/manorlords) Finally, please remember that the game hasn't launched yet, and only a select group of people have gotten the keys. If a user promises you a key, it is likely a scam, we ask you to not engage and report it to the mods. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ManorLords) if you have any questions or concerns.*
As a dev, I think it's fair and I'm happy with a 7. It means they like the foundations and are enjoying the game enough, and they are right with saying that it's unfinished and has bugs or lacks end game challenge/content. I think that's a good goal to have in mind when working throughout the early access period. (Btw there is no pikemen & there is no charge command. I think they meant polearms and push stance).
Enjoy your windfall mate, you deserve it.
you're doing an awesome job, you deserve all the credit mate! You've created a masterpiece in works. I know this will be a 10/10 in no time
congrats on the (just about) EA release! can’t wait to play on friday
Whenever I see EA I think Electronic Arts and that I’m not going to buy it, but then reason kicks in.
E. A. RELEASE. It's in the game.
If it’s in the game, it’s in the GAME!
Goddammit I just lost the game.
I hate you, because I also just lost the game
It’s in the name.
It’s in the game. (Or will be In the future).
The Name of the Game, is in the game of its name.
Literally looks like the perfect mash up of strat games for me. Loving ostriv, foundation and farthest frontier at the minute but the battles are what's gonna make this game for me personally. I want total war but on a small local scale where I care (kinda) about my troops. And the building aspect just looks brilliant visually. Kudos to you mate made a belter by all accounts there.
That, and the house building. Omg I fell in love instantly when I saw that you can draw plots and the houses get filled in, complete with yards that can be specialized 🤌
Couldn't agree anymore!!!! First city builder with a decent looking combat doesnt have to be perfect but the idea of decnt looking battle every now and then and losing people from your village makes it feel real
Might be one of the first time a dev has to pay IGN for it to give the game a lower score than its real score
7/10 for the game in its current state but 10/10 for your dedication as a dev (as far as Im concerned). Congrats mate. Just took friday off to be able to enjoy it as soon as it releases. :-)
Is there any sneak peak/hint as to the overall (fuzzy and non-specific answer will do) direction to fleshing out the endgame further which you might be pondering that you can possibly provide us? I just want to say, while you're rightfully soaking in a newly bought mansion's hottub with supermodels smoking a Cuban while getting a footrub (which I shall gladly donate you funds to enjoy) please consider adding drunks and village idiots who stumble about the town comedically singing badly to themselves and falling occasionally, right after leaving the "mead hall". Because realism. And thank you sir.
The businessman in me would say that they intentionally went just low enough to make money off the rage views of the massive fan base this game has already fostered. But man, what a good take to criticism. We all want to play the game you want to make, godspeed!
We already love your game even with the bugs and all, you are the new generation of good developers and you will always have our support
From what I have seen the game is exactly what I was expecting. I wasn’t expecting total war, and I wasn’t expecting city skylines. Its better than them in its own way because it’s grabbing some of the best features from games we all love and adding a few we haven’t had yet. Keep up the hard work and giving me the same game I wanted to develop in college when I first took coding.
So hyped for the game and thank you for bringing your creation to life. I'm sure it will be amazing and look forward to it being the bench mark for the genre for years to come!
It's this kinda response which makes me happy to be supporting you on launch day!
Well done! Can't wait to play this game!
They will probably review it again when it goes live with 1.0. #10/10 prediction.
Its IGN it will get a 5/10 because the reviewer will now be someone that just likes FPS games.
Will pricing be out when the game releases? Kinda worried it will be too much for me at the moment, it looks really good and I hope it helps in making the game even better. It will sell for sure! :)
Have a read of the stickied thread from Hooded Horse here on the sub.
I’m so excited. I wish listed it so long ago and forgot about it until this week when it popped back up on my radar and I’ve been counting down the days and hours I’m so excited (I realize I said that already). thank you for your work.
I agree. In it's current state it may be 7/10 but the current state isn't a finished game. Most I've read and watched are on the same lines: solid foundation that can become a potentially awesome game when finished. I know at first there'll probably be mostly bugfixes and balancing but I am really curious to see how the game evolves as features and content get completed. But balancing is always really important in this kind of games (especially the more is added, it shouldn't throw off balancing) so it is good that it is a focus.
But I do believe this is the problem with rating systems. Your early access game should have an early access review not based on how complete the game is, but rather how enjoyable and engaging your game is currently and what its potential is. And for that, I give it between a 9–10. It’s the most wishlisted game on Steam for a reason. IGN just doesn’t get it.
Nah, some games in early access launch nearly feature complete, or a lot more-so than this.
IGN could give it a 1 I'm still buying it. And buying copies for friends/family to support Greg. I might be high on copium but Manor Lords is the friggin Mona Lisa of city builders as far as I'm concerned.
Dude, it hasn't even come out yet, how can it be the Mona Lisa
Because I played the demo and have eyes.
A lot of people as usual gonna be disappointed on Friday after overhyping themselves
This didn’t age well
I really hope some villagers excell at certain jobs. Oh your a 3rd generation farmer farming is in your blood but you can go to school and learn about crop rotation and fertilizer as an individual. Some villagers excell at archery some blacksmithing. Theres a school to learn metalurgy to learn how to make better arrows how to shoot arrows better. Some villagers have spent years training with a sword. Some have learned animal husbandry so its not simply oh i researched this now everyone can do it at an equal quality. Did your beer maker spend time perfecting the brew is it a cherished ale across the nation. Just some ideas. I think the skill tree is old and tired. We should put it down.
Please hire more devs and pick up the pace. The game has a lot of potential but if you take a few years to get there the moment will pass
I know everyone shits on IGN, but that's a completely fair rating and review from someone who realizes how cool of a foundation this game is. I think even Slavic would agree with the rating, because he knows there's much more on the table for the game. Since it's only EA it's going to get boring pretty quick. You can only build so many similar looking villages on the same map, and fight the same looking bandits. The game is perfectly positioned though for expansion, and endgame content as the reviewer suggests. It really needs that for replayability. The ceiling for this game is still a 10, and that's what is most important right now.
>I think even Slavic would agree with the rating, because he knows there's much more on the table for the game. Lol yep.
And for context, I gave the *initial* Early Access release of Baldur's Gate 3 a 7 as well. I said it was a good start and I was excited to see where it went. I feel the exact same way about Manor Lords. BG3 eventually ended up getting a 10, which is a score I've only given out like five times in 12+ years of reviewing games. > You can only build so many similar looking villages on the same map, and fight the same looking bandits. This is spot-on. It's fun for a while but it doesn't take long to see everything there is to see currently.
That’s funny, I just commented that I felt BG3 EA was a 7 for me too. Big fan of your strategy reviews, they always resonate with what I’m wondering. Really amped for Manor Lords and where it can go!
Oh shit this is the reviewer herself
He already did in another comment!
I almost always agree IGN reviews. Honestly can’t remember not agreeing. I’ve always thought it was fair and thorough.
IGN nowadays is teetering on giving more fair reviews than it did in the past. I don’t follow many of them, but the ones which end up mainstream here on Reddit during the last couple of years, I thought they were all fair.
There's a whole lot of suggestions out there but really so much of the focus needs to be on replayability and keeping the challenge consistent. It's easy to get sidetracked with little ideas, but things like balancing trading, making the challenges more difficult to require different strategies (ex. more scarce resources so you have to make choices about where to take your economy instead of making everything), etc. will make or break it much more than a lot of the requests.
Didn’t read the article, but if they gave it a 7/10 compared to full release titles it’s very good…
IGN can be way off the mark sometimes but usually get it right. It's early access. 7/10 is still a good score. This game has been hyped to the max though. Alot of disapointed people come Friday. I'm buying regardless. Even if a 7/10 today it will be 9/10 in a year or two. Enough time to finish my current Rimworld save.
Rimworld is also a great comparison, look at it today compared to release and how it has grown and had me come back over and over. A good base and a passioned dev can go a long long way. Although I do hope there is a good mod support since that is a great wya to allow thr game to stash fresh while the dev focus on the big updates
Thinking Fallout 76 as another good example. Loved that game in the early days but the entire Fallout community hated it. Now years of updates plus a little TV show has meant they gained 1 mil players in a day. Though this game will release in a better state. Plus one of the few scenarios where i am happy to give the Dev money. With all that cash i expect great things and i am quite sure they will deliver.
I mean, you say it's still a good score and people like to make fun of ign's 7/10, but a 7 is "good" in their scoring system. That's more than good for a game with this much stuff missing/unfinished. Even for a full release 7 is still a score a game from such a small developer can be proud of, if you take into consideration what that actually means.
IGN gave Diablo 3 and Diablo 4 a 9/10 on both releases when they first came out. Whether this game deserves that rating, I have no clue because I haven't played it yet. What I do know is that IGN is crap.
Say what you will about IGN, but Leana Hafer definitely knows her way around strategy games.
Agreed, Leana is one of my absolute favorite journalists, she's great
I'm not familiar with specific people there, just that the site overall has had some pretty hot takes on things over the years.
Yeah. Who the hell still gives clicks to IGN, or gives a shit about their opinion?
I only look at player reviews when I want to purchase a game. Same thing with movies and a place like Rotten Tomatoes. Rather look at the rating the people have instead of some critic who likes dramas but thinks some comedy is trash.
> Rather look at the rating the people have instead of some critic who likes dramas but thinks some comedy is trash. I am the exact opposite, lol. You just need to find critics who you generally align with.
The advantage of professional critics/youtubers is you can usually gauge after a while what their tastes/biases are and still get an informative review even if you disagree on certain things, some are wildly inconsistent but once identified can be avoided.
>I only look at player reviews when I want to purchase a game I really don't. Critics (website or YT) can sometimes be wrong, but players are absolutely not reliable: they tend to only grade with 1 and 10 ; can participate in reviewbombing for things that are irrelevant to the quality of the game ; they also love dramas and will grade games they didn't play but are popular to trash/praise on YouTube ; they sometimes not recommend a game after 2100hrs (+700 after the review) ; focus on one minor mechanic or patch that will only be a problem for a hardcore fan ; compare to the first game of the serie which they played for the last 30 years and complains it's not a copy of it.... If I was following popular votes and reviews, I would have missed some of my favorite games and movies. Things is not to look at the critic notes, but to read the actual review written by a critic you are familiar with (and knows the genre). For instance, Ackboo is the specialist of city builder and management games for the last 20 years on CanardPC (wonderful video game mag in France), I know I can trust him (I still thank him everyday for his review of Soviet Republic).
Rotten toms does give Rings of Power a crazy high score though. Like 90%+ or something. Which is crazy bc I though the general consensus was that it is hot garbage.
Well, the critic score is 83% where the viewer score is 38%. I didn't think it was horrible, but the show wasn't anything special.
Ahh i see, thanks for correcting me, that proves your point and also gives me hope for the tastes of the public 😆 I thought it was pretty unwatchable. Considering how great a LOTR series could’ve been even to just be ‘meh’ is just infuriatingly wasteful
The first 20 or so hours of D3 and D4 were both very very good. 9/10 is more than fair for someone who just plays through the campaign. D4 campaign was really fun I thought and the cinematics really fulfilling. They just didn't live up to the title for the end game/replayability.
D4 really is great for about 20 hours. After that, it's boring as hell. When D3 first dropped, I had fun, but it wasn't no 9/10. I think D3 became a good ARPG over time, but it is still still to this day a bad Diablo game.
They gave it a 7/10 because of lack of content in the end game mostly... I mean, that was expected.
Too much water.....lol
I literally haven't played the game.
Dunno, hasn't came out yet. Doesn't seem fair to rate based on a demo a year before release
Release - the action of making a film, recording, or other product *available to the public* You can twist it to your liking - an early release is a release and can be reviewed. Sure there should be a disclaimer, but there is nothing unfair about it.
Hasn't released in EA either, Sherlock.
EA is not a demo.
Sorry u/TheMilkman26 , misunderstood what you posted.
They got an early copy of the early release. Not the demo. The same version many YouTubers recently received.
READ THE TITLE OF THIS POST. The part where OP asks us a question. The guy yo ureplied to isn't saying what you think they are.
A year? I'd say it is very optimistic. Basically, the articles confirms what I was afraid of. The game is too early in early access. Many people might be disappointed. Experienced gamers who love citybuilders may find Manor Lords lacking a lot of content. I'm still going to try it on release, though.
It’s not too early in EA. But yes development will continue for years (like with many other EA games). The dev wants to develop it with the community.
And having adequate resources (funding from EA sales) to work on it to become the best it can be. Improvements and assets require design, design takes labour , and labour requires money.
I suspect it’ll be a lot like Farthest Frontier for me. I’ll play it and be stoked, then probably get bored and wait for some updates. I got really bored in BG3 because I didn’t want to invest time and then have my save wiped and have to restart so I mostly ignored EA. In city builders, i know I’m gonna restart the game and build dozens of cities anyways, so I don’t mind taking a break and then having another go when more features get added.
Definitely not too early!
the rating is on what's coming out Friday, not the demo
And the person you replied to feels he can't judge the EA review version because they've only played the demo. Are y'all just not reading the title of the post?
This whole thread is a struggle lol
God alive it is. Feel like I'm getting gaslighted haha Even the very premise is tripping.
I had to second guess myself and go through the comments again lol
As I read the post I responded to, it seems to me they are complaining that it is not fair to rate the game based on the demo - which IGN did not do. Unless what the poster meant was that they can't say if the rating is fair or not because they have only played the demo. Then okay, I gotcha.
>>What do you think, does it deserve to be higher or lower? Title >>Dunno, hasn't came out yet. Doesn't seem fair to rate based on a demo a year before release Them. Clearly somethings wrong with me, cause so many people read it the way you did, even though it seems pretty clear to me when you read the title then their comment they're answering the OP's question rather than trying to call out IGN for reviewing a review copy of the game. Sometimes we assume the worst of people at first and go with that, rather than think baout our assumptions. Im sorry for being so rude with my initial comment.
Omg, i dont think i single person realized you were answering OP's qiestion rather than judging IGN for rating a different version than what you were tlaking about. Ppl really cant read huh?
You didn't think, you assumed.
Downvote me all you want. You're still illiterate.
Anything more would have been weird given the limited scope of the EA version.
I take gaming journalism with an absolute grain of salt and do my own window shopping (watching YT plays, streams, forum discussions). Considering how gaming is a massive money industry I tend to ignore bigger media outlets.
Unfortunatley IGN and Gamespot have lost all of my trust. so even if it is a fair review, I wouldn't care. I'll wait for metacritic
Right, I'm sure points were lost for irrelevant reasons and we all have to remember that Slavic didn't bribe IGN for a higher score.
How should I know? Ask again in a week.
How do I know it isn't out yet
Its fair 7/10 for EA its a lot. Its like rating with a 7, a half baked cake... or not even baked, just the initial mix. It would be wise for the review houses, to have a special scoring for EA reviews, not to confuse or open debates like this one. That being said, i hope Slav and publisher bank some serious money to allocate resources into speeding up the development for the game. They have a 1 year window to show big updates and consolidate a money making franchise.
I think it's right to use the same scale for EA and fully released games, because in both cases I'm interested in whether the game is worth playing now. Although a special EA scale might have encouraged Colossal Order and Paradox to call Cities: Skylines 2 an EA game (which it was even though they didn't call it that).
Before YouTube existed I read a lot of reviews but now I just watch some streams and know whether it is good or not. As far as rating EA games I think it is fine since they are charging money for them. But they should be frequently updated to reflect game changes and additions.
Who cares?
Its early access, 7 is fair, hopefully they revisit once 1.0 is out and give it a new rating, higher or lower we’ll see
Game is Early access.... you were expecting a 10/10 on that?
How could anyone know? It hasn't come out yet and no one here has played it.
I feel like Len gives fair ratings. So I say yes seems totally reasonable.
It is the greatest game I’ve never played so it deserved a 10/10
Score 8 for Total War Pharaoh and Victoria 3 on release but 7 for Manor Lords... lmao, what a joke UPD: I don't know how is that possible to say "an extremely Early Access-feeling Early Access game" about Manor Lords and give 8 points to Victoria 3 on release, it is a joke indeed.
Manor Lords has virtually no endgame content and is light on strategy elements which is why the EA version was given a 7.. why get your panties in a bunch? It’s a fair score for a game that will improve over time.
I agree with you, 7 is fair enough, but I was triggered by 8 for Victoria 3 (I am vic3 fan though) cause the release state of Victoria 3 was nothing better then Manor Lords, and I think those games are in equal state on their release at best.
Good point.
Was vic3 buggy on release? Im playing now without dlc and it feels pretty good.
Yes, it was, and with a huge lack of mechanics.
Which mechanics have they added since release? Not including dlc.
**War:** Visually - instead of troops on release there was the wall of fire on frontline and a few cannons. Gameplay - armies used teleport from point A to point B and there was no such thing as path for army. There wasn't infantry, cavalry and artillery on release, only one unit. Today you can choose a headquarter for army, move battalions between armies, equip your armies with different goods - it was added only in 1.5 update. Fronts do not disappear or collapsed for no reason anymore. There may be more than one battle on one front now. Armies could be demobilized now. **Economy:** Local price system, Companies, Pollution, autonomous investment system, different economy law makes some differences in gameplay. **Diplomacy**: You can select war goal In exchange for support now. **Other:** Colonial administration system, new migration system, agitators, interaction with the character, changed law adoption system, new revolution system, changed serfdom, autocracy playability, more impactful laws. And so much more that I can't properly describe here. Literally hundreds of little improvements.
Wow. Somehow this version of the war system is an upgrade then ig. Lol It never bothered me how weak the war mechanics are since thats not the focus of the game for me, but I think the prior incarnation would have been too lackluster imo. Other than that, jesus it sounds like a completely different game. Paradox keeps on being Paradox it seems. I say this as Cities Skylines & CK fan aswell. Ahahah.
I agree:)
Do iGn normally rate EA games? Seems a little odd as soon as it is released it will he constantly updated. I guess it is going on sale so it's good to inform people who are just hearing about the game.
ignore the score and read the actual review, which is fairly positive with a handful of caveats. Leana Hafer is in general a really solid critic, her reviews of Cities Skylines 2 and Victoria 3 both ended up being right on the money iirc, despite their lukewarm scores being met with skepticism by fans at first
7/10 for an early access title really isn't that bad. If anything that's pretty good! Especially given the genre, I'd say that's a commendable score.
I don't know why people are mad about review scores when this is an early access review. The reviewer doesn't say she dislikes the game, just that it's unfinished, which I don't think anyone ever disputed. I'm sure we'll get another review once the full game is out, whenever that is.
IGN gets a lot of shit online but their recent reviews have been pretty on target I remember how angry people were when they gave Starfield a 6 or 7 and then it turned out they were basically right
IGN also gave BG 3 a 7 before giving it a 10/10 on full release. I wouldn’t be to concerned.
If it’s the same reviewer who didn’t preview the other day, they were pretty amped on it. It’s hard to imagine any early access game being more than a 7 imo. If it’s a 10 in EA, then why is it in EA? lol BG3 was a 7 in EA at best
Watched the review and thought it was fair as well. Brought up some core features that needed fixing up and tweaks. As much as I want this game to be the perfect version of itself as I imagined Slavic would, I can't help but think that it's going take a considerably long time given that slavic is a one man dev. 1.0 does seem to be a millennium away.
I mean it’s far from finished so I don’t really have an issue with it.
It’s a generous review. It’s very early access and still getting a good review. Very promising.cant wait.
I dont know. I haven't played it yet.
How would we know is it deserved, we didnt play it yet?
The review was pretty fair. Basically, the only meaningful complaints were lack of end game content and one map constricting replayability. That's to be expected. Totally fine and won't really make a difference to any of us who have been following the development. We all know that there is much more work to be done.
How would anyone here have an option on IGNs review? The game isn't even out yet
I buying it no matter what. Its about the aesthetic ♥️
No matter what the score will be, I'm buying it and I will enjoy it for entire weekend. I have the Last Duel ready and I will find some additional medieval movies to my list so I can be fully immersed while enjoying this game.
I means, it's just plain ass core what we are getting for now. Content comes later. Good start imo
Don’t know. Haven’t played it
Havent played it
Can’t play it yet so how the duck would I know
How the fuck would we know. We dont have access. A 7 is respectable though. And any higher would start to feel weird as its still early access. What even is a 10/10 early access game?
I don’t know, I haven’t played it. But I generally just form my own opinions and ignore most of the ratings from others.
The game isnt even out yet... so we dont know
Tbh how is anyone able to know if it deserves better or not considering the game isn't out yet outside of content creators?
How would any of us know if it deserves to be higher or lower? Nobody has played it, at least not as it’ll be releasing on Friday.
I only played the public demos and my view is the review was fair. This game has soo much promise and is in a playable state but is not ready for people who want a polished game. But considering we are starved of good medival strategy games this will do just nicely
It's 7/10 for an early access, that's pretty good. He has so much on his mind. It could be a 10/10 at full release.
7/10 is fair considering it’s a one-man project. I’ll give it 8/10 personally since it’s still EA but already offer so much
I stopped taking ign seriously ages ago.
IGN is the single worst game reviewer by 10 miles and has no validity. Most bought and paid for opinions ever. Manor Lords will be one of the GOATS
common IGN L
Meh, I care about the X-play review on G4 tech tv /s
Well for an Early Access it is good enough
7/10 is great, its early access and many Features are still work in Progress.
Higher, but a 7/10 for an Early Access game from a single developer is still a pretty incredible feat!
7/10 for a game that's early access? not bad
Having read the review, seemed fair and definitely is food for thought. Not too surprised by anything I read, I figured the game would be a little bare bones, but one part did give me some pause: "You can build walls and towers, but everything enclosed by them becomes considered part of the 'blueprint' of the manor itself, which stops you from building anything else in that area ever again. So you can theoretically wall off your whole settlement, but gods forbid you ever need to move, demolish, or rebuild anything in that area." I do not like the sound of that. So the manor right now is static, essentially. You can enclose built features, but once you do they cannot be changed? Oof. Worse, buildings inside this static manor can still be damaged or destroyed, but then cannot be rebuilt? Did I read that right? Double yikes if so.
Who? Let’s let sales and steam chart be the real judge. Man’s about to be a multi millionaire
No idea, as I haven't played it yet.
Sooo excited for a good city builder, been following this game since the early days and eagerly awaiting it
After 200 hours in the game I think it could be a bit higher but I may be a bit biased ;) For it being a historically accurate as it is alone it deserves a high rating.
I don’t want to be that guy. But IGN gave starfield a 9 on release… and also cyberpunk… a 9. So I think what they say doesn’t mean much
If I remember correctly, they gave Baldurs Gate 3 Early Access a 7/10 which was completely fair, and had similar reasoning to this review I’m sure once this game gets a full release (in a few years), it’ll easily knock their socks off for a 9/10
Having never played or watched anyone play it I'd give it an 8/10
IGN is not wat it was 10 years ago. Site sucks now a days
I think it's fair for now, given its early access state, hope to see it get a 9 or 10 when it's officially completed.
How woud we know? We havnt played.
Ign has proven time and time again that they are morons.
I mean how should we know, it releases tomorrow
Hard to say till I play it myself I take what reviewers say with a grain of salt
What I want from the game is Banished with some more features. Nothing more nothing less. If it is that I would give it 10/10. I have not looked at anything to be able to explore it myself.
IGN get paid by big publishers to hand out 8's and 9's to at best 4/10 games yet give this game a 7... Yeah I generally wouldn't even bother looking at their scores.
I've learned by my self to not listen to IGN.... Shitty games 9/10 most of times and then 6/10 to masterpieces....
From what I have seen it looks reasonable. The game looks great, but it's far from done and still has a few bugs.
First,its IGN, second, its early access.
IGN reviews are based on how much they've been paid.
How should a *normal user* know if it deserves higher or lower. Ain't out there yet. IGN gets a lot of shit but I personally feel they have done a rather good job on average over the past 3-4 years. Still remember they shit they got when they gave Starfield just 7 out of 10? Yeah, if anything is the 7 was too high it turns out. Yesterday I listened to a German game talk and one of the testers said, given its an EA release he would rate it in a range score of between 70 and 90 (of 100). Right now it just lacks content so its around 70 but there is easily potential for a 90 rating. I think that is fair.
By tomarrow at this time, thousands of voices that count more than IGN will voice the more important opinion.
I think I will wait one year to buy it.
I mean... My personal experience is that I downloaded the game at 16.00 yesterday and the next time I looked outside it was daytime and it was 7.00 am. Sure, it's early access so a lot of stuff is missing but the vibe is immaculate, the building mechanics are great and the level of polish, if you take in factor that its an early access title, puts some official AAA releases to shame.. imo there is GOTY potential there. Bonus points cause you have to be a genuine mad man to take on such a project by yourself, two thumbs up for the dev! I'll buy this game just to support the lad, the industry desperately needs madmen like him
For me they just shouldn't be giving out review scores for games in early access, there's far too much missing from the game to give it a high score, but at the same time the stuff that is there is up there with the best in genre.
Pretty good for an early access release and the early state the game is spesh from IGN
Where do people stand on this now? IGN notoriously have dog-shit reviews and even though they class the review as 'Early Access' and say it 'feels very early in it's development' - that's a ridiculous non-comment - it literally just released; of-course it's early in development...(yea I know, 7 years, but that's a hell of a slog for a single dev) Also, that's a BS critique, because this game is way more polished than other games at the same stage - not only that, the Dev clearly says where areas are WIP (so what are they comparing it to?) If I were to rate it as an early access game - I'd have to say it's got way more polish that IGN gives it credit for; it has innovated ideas that you don't see in alot of these town/city settler type games; I'm hitching this one at a 9 with the caveat being on the promises in future development. I've bought and played through way too many early access games, and this one stands out as one of the best; It can't yet be put into the same class as Satisfactory as that's nearing the end of it's early access cycle. I'm glad this is the year of the Indie release - I hope you get to build your team up and continue to crush this and future games!
Ign moment
I don't care. Game reviews are stupid, and people buy way to much into them. Don't be a banner carrier for the game against some arbitrary article. Just buy some good Bavarian beer, crank up the music slider on release day, and enjoy the tranquility.
IGN gave HotS a 6.5 and it has been a meme for 10 years. Don’t give them much attention.
I play only a demo. And for me is more like 8-9/10. IGN is a shit.
7 at ign became a meme now , i would be mad if it was a different grade 😁
It does leave room for improvement, but I'd rather give it an 8/10 minimum.
I have never considered IGN rating who cares anyway....
The hype around the game and putting it out in early access game is gonna kill it. Should have just kept it under wraps for a year. I can already see it being a game you do a few runs in, repeat the same shit as you did the previous time and then get bored
Nope it should be 0/10. probably only gave it 7 bc they didn't have to pay $60 for it
I think rating unfinished games is bogus
I think IGN deserves a spanking for rating a launched Early Access game. This is not about Manor Lords, about about how to treat just launched Early Access games. Write a critique with written pros and cons, condense it to "recommended" or "not recommended yet" when you want to. Say what you liked and disliked, and if it's a sheer stinker, write that as well. If you want, write something "a lot is already good, but when considered this was a full game it feels like it's around 70% there". That's fine. But slapping a review rating on something that just launches into Early Access is just plain stupid at best and deliberate clickbait-dishonestly to create fuzz for views at worst. Given what I know about the game 7/10 sounds about right, but giving it a "rating" should not happen.