Thread Tools
Old November 14, 2001, 21:52   #31
Blackadar1
Chieftain
 
Local Time: 16:45
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 69
I'd be very surprised if PC Gamer didn't give it glowing reviews. After all, this is the mag that said SMAC was the best game of all time and gave it a 98%.
Blackadar1 is offline  
Old November 14, 2001, 21:53   #32
n.c.
Emperor
 
n.c.'s Avatar
 
Local Time: 11:45
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: North Carolina, best state in the union
Posts: 3,894
Excellent. Hopefully you will stick around to remind people what they can and cannot say.
n.c. is offline  
Old November 14, 2001, 21:59   #33
Asharak
Chieftain
 
Local Time: 11:45
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ottawa, ON, Canada
Posts: 39
On the Original Topic of This Thread
It's obvious reviewers don't get enough time to play the games -- given that one of Civ's most endearing and enduring qualities is it's near-infinite replay value, review sites that can churn out a review the day of release or hours thereafter (even granted that they got an advance reviewer's copy) obviously haven't played enough to be able to speak to the full scope of the game. After all, if it was discovered that, somehow, Firaxis had shot the replay value of Civ3, would it still be great? Not for me. But how can a review site, which clearly has only played a full game once or twice (or else played on a tiny map with 3 Civs, again missing a major element of the game), speak to such topics? They can't.

Magazines and review sites are commercial. They depend on sales, hits, and links to make the revenue to support the staff and site costs. To get those purchases and hits, they need cutting-edge and up-to-date content: being the first on the block with a review of the newest game guarantees that. So they hand their reviewer a copy of the game expect something back ASAP. Gamers typically consider this a 'comprehensive' review. That's our fault. Maybe it's possible with games like Quake and Unreal Tournament, where plot is thin to non-existent, and all that needs analysis are graphics, weapon loadouts, and multiplayer options and interface, but it's not possible with a game like Civ.

I don't believe that 'Sid' reviews are terribly slanted -- after all, I'm an avid fan of every game the man has attached his name to since I started playing computers in the days of Civ1 -- simply because I agree with them. I love the games. I feel that most of the 'glaring bugs' and 'hideous omissions' that have been mentioned most about Civ are more minor than they're been treated as. And while they are problems, they aren't ones that have really detracted from my enjoyment of the game.

But that's not to say I think they're complete. While I agree with the final ratings in most cases, that's because I've consciously dismissed the bugs or issues as major concerns. Many reviews don't, as started this thread, even seem to NOTICE them -- and that bothers me. So in the final analysis, I agree with the conclusions of the review sites and the magazines, but I take exception, sometimes, to the methods they seem to use to come to those conclusions.
Asharak is offline  
Old November 14, 2001, 22:22   #34
Evil Robot
Chieftain
 
Evil Robot's Avatar
 
Local Time: 08:45
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: ...
Posts: 43
Quote:
PC Gamer said SMAC was the best game of all time
No. It gave it a deserved (IMNSHO) 98%, but not best game. It won the award for best turn-based strategy game of the year. Half-Life is still (according to PCG) "the best game of all time".
Evil Robot is offline  
Old November 15, 2001, 01:06   #35
Imran Siddiqui
staff
Apolytoners Hall of FameAge of Nations TeamPolyCast Team
 
Imran Siddiqui's Avatar
 
Local Time: 12:45
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: on the corner of Peachtree and Peachtree
Posts: 30,698
Well, I'd give it a 90+, so I don't think there is anything wrong with the reviews
__________________
“I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
- John 13:34-35 (NRSV)
Imran Siddiqui is offline  
Old November 15, 2001, 04:25   #36
Adm.Naismith
King
 
Adm.Naismith's Avatar
 
Local Time: 17:45
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Milano - Italy
Posts: 1,674
Re: On the Original Topic of This Thread
Quote:
Originally posted by Asharak
It's obvious reviewers don't get enough time to play the games -- given that one of Civ's most endearing and enduring qualities is it's near-infinite replay value, review sites that can churn out a review the day of release or hours thereafter (even granted that they got an advance reviewer's copy) obviously haven't played enough to be able to speak to the full scope of the game.



While I agree with the final ratings in most cases, that's because I've consciously dismissed the bugs or issues as major concerns. Many reviews don't, as started this thread, even seem to NOTICE them -- and that bothers me. So in the final analysis, I agree with the conclusions of the review sites and the magazines, but I take exception, sometimes, to the methods they seem to use to come to those conclusions.
I agree that many game mags don't test game deep enough to give them a proper evaluation. I, just for example, usually like the style of PC Format (UK magazine) reviews, also because they usually appear a month or two later: they don't jump on the "me first" wagon, so I noticed they usually spend more time looking around for bugs, balancing issue and replayability test.

That said, IMHO all the review model should be different.
Considering the (BAD) habit to release half baked games, with different level of post-sales support and patches, extension pack and so on, any game with a decent life span should receive a series of small review, that modify the score according to how the game survive to the test of time (and its producer support ).

That said, an high vote to CIV III so far, just with the hope that Firaxis will solve every problem with the first patch, doesn't sounds fair to me.

I've get the feel the game today is somewhere into the range 75-80% AS IS, with hopes to raise to 90% only after a good patches treatment, MP and Editor completed.

Of course anyone can live for hopes, or have lower expectation...
Adm.Naismith is offline  
Old November 15, 2001, 04:54   #37
Bubba_B
Warlord
 
Bubba_B's Avatar
 
Local Time: 11:45
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ohio
Posts: 101
Quote:
I expect the PC Gamer review will be less than forgiving.
Better find a new Gamer Mag. PC Gamer 92%

Seem a bit high for PC Gamer with the bugs in the game and no multiplayer or senarios.
Bubba_B is offline  
Old November 15, 2001, 07:41   #38
Grumbold
Emperor
 
Grumbold's Avatar
 
Local Time: 17:45
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 3,732
Quote:
Originally posted by Bubba_B


Better find a new Gamer Mag. PC Gamer 92%

Seem a bit high for PC Gamer with the bugs in the game and no multiplayer or senarios.
Haven't got my copy yet. The key thing fpr me is, did they notice and mention the bugs, or give it a 92% because they didn't? When magazines publish reviews that have completely missed obvious game-breaking strategies or bugs I don't bother to resubscribe. PC Gamer nearly lost me before because of their excessive enthusiasm for Black & White. Unfortunately this leaves me relying almost exclusively on web boards for information these days, and while it is often accurate it has a much higher overhead in terms of the time taken to build a balanced view. I need at least one magazine to point out to me the smaller niche games that I might otherwise never find.
__________________
To doubt everything or to believe everything are two equally convenient solutions; both dispense with the necessity of reflection. H.Poincare
Grumbold is offline  
Old November 15, 2001, 09:27   #39
Bubba_B
Warlord
 
Bubba_B's Avatar
 
Local Time: 11:45
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ohio
Posts: 101
No mention of bugs..
Didn't recall them saying anything about any bugs.

Mentioned the combat system and culture hiccups about losing your city to a weaker culture as low points. They hit on multiplayer but that didn't seem to affect the score.

No multiplayer for PC Gamer is usally a big NO-NO, drops most 90+ games to an excellent.

Oh well go figure.....
Bubba_B is offline  
Old November 15, 2001, 14:21   #40
Setsuna
Warlord
 
Local Time: 11:45
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 139
*Sees mention of PCGamer's review of 92%*

This.. this cannot be.

You let me down man! Now I don't believe in NOTHING NO MORE!

I'M GOING TO LAW SCHOOL!!!!!!!!
Setsuna is offline  
Old November 15, 2001, 14:27   #41
Setsuna
Warlord
 
Local Time: 11:45
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 139
Man, PC Gamer's OLD staff would never have dropped the ball like this. I remember when they would butcher games that every other magazine and online site would give endless praises to.

Not to mention the fact that they keep sending me an issue WITH NO DAMN CD. I really need to call them about that since they won't respond to my e-mails.

But, as a loyal subscriber since 1996, I'll put up with it.

*Snap*

ASFHADHSFKADSFADFHSADFHSJASDJFKLKLAFHL DIE DIE DIE PCGAMER!
Setsuna is offline  
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:45.


Design by Vjacheslav Trushkin, color scheme by ColorizeIt!.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Apolyton Civilization Site | Copyright © The Apolyton Team