pc.ign.com review up: 9.3! *nt*

[Pembleton]

Originally posted by HawaiiFive-O

Gee thanks. Now I have the Hawaii Five-O theme running through my head every time I see your name.

[yin26]

Yes, the CtP people proudly said the same thing. I saved $100 and COUNTLESS hours *NOT* seeing that game for myself, thank you very much (well, I got it [wrongly] as a gift and promptly erased it even then).

If the LE comes out here in Korea for $35 (I've heard that rumor), I won't be wasting too much money to try it out. Otherwise, I'm already seeing enough to pretty much make this a bargain bin purchase.

[Shiva]

Originally posted by yin26
So, yes. I have a bias. I have a bias against early reviews of a game that should be reviewed after extensive gameplay while people start jumpin up and down like kids in a candy store: "See! He said MP's not important. That PROVES it!"

As I said before, this is the way it works anymore with reviews of games Yin. The mags will be about the same i'll bet. Years ago they did extensive reviews but that was a long long time ago.

As for a bias you seem to have it in for civ3. You say "I have a bias against early reviews of a game that should be reviewed after extensive gameplay" and it sounds like you just want this game to have an extensive review, not all.

[yin26]

Yes. I'm just having flashbacks to the SMAC review. I won't trust anybody's review (even mine, if I had the game) for a few weeks at least. It's just the nature of the beast.

Carry on, all.

[FrostyBoy]

I'll fix those head graphics, put elvis back in too.

anything that annoys me, can screw my gameplay, that's why I couldn't play ctp

good review too

[GoofyBoy]

If find the patience and tolerence people here have of yin26 (who seems to be more interested in justifing his purchasing decision, rather than any seriously discussion about the game) to be quite impressive.

[yin26]

LOL! Considering I'm saying the review is worthless BECAUSE it doesn't discuss gameplay makes you either A) A poor reader or B) Just another troll. Get in line.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You do realize some people like SMAC .

And a GamesDomain Review strategy article not to long ago, stated that even after a year, SMAC was an amazing game. And he wasn't that impressed when it first came out .

[Shiva]

Originally posted by yin26
LOL! Considering I'm saying the review is worthless BECAUSE it doesn't discuss gameplay makes you either A) A poor reader or B) Just another troll. Get in line.

No Yin, sorry just because someone points out your wrong doesnt make them a troll. Your like the little boy who cried wolf with that. Any time you cant come up with an arguement you cry "troll".

You said:

Originally posted by yin26
" I have a bias against early reviews of a game that should be reviewed after extensive gameplay while people start jumpin up and down like kids in a candy store: "See! He said MP's not important. That PROVES it!"

"early reviews of a game". Not games. You just have an axe to grind with Civ3. It shows in what you write. You even go so far as to basicly tell everyone what the reviewer really ment when we have his words and score. Your just too blind to see how badly biased your are.

Like I said in the last thread where we talked about reviews, i'll be shocked if ones below 89%. Get over it because Civ3 will be a big seller no matter what ever kind of PR it got here about MP. Have a good night

[GoofyBoy]

Yes, the CtP people proudly said the same thing. I saved $100 and COUNTLESS hours *NOT* seeing that game for myself, thank you very much (well, I got it [wrongly] as a gift and promptly erased it even then).

If the LE comes out here in Korea for $35 (I've heard that rumor), I won't be wasting too much money to try it out. Otherwise, I'm already seeing enough to pretty much make this a bargain bin purchase.

You don't seem to be talking about the quality of the review here.

What I'm saying is

1. Every thread that you post more than 4 times deteriates into why you won't buy it unless you get it cheap/includes multiplayer.
2. Say that it isn't a good review, state your reasons, then move on. No amount of posting will change the review.
3. People here really do seem tolerant of you. You say negative things about the game (for apparently your own reasons) on a forum dedicated to the game.

[yin26]

sorry just because someone points out your wrong

Oh, please. His 'argument' was a troll. End of story. Re-read the thing and come back. As for the ratings ... so what? The point is they rarely tell the whole story. Surely you've picked up on that line of reasoning somewhere in here. And as for selling lots of games: Did I ever say otherwise?

[Shiva]

Originally posted by yin26

Oh, please. His 'argument' was a troll.

Damn it Yin would you please use the persons name, I thought that was aimed at me

[yin26]

O.K. Now you are making an argument. And this is not a troll from you, so I will answer it:

1. Every thread that you post more than 4 times deteriates into why you won't buy it unless you get it cheap/includes multiplayer.

'Every' simply isn't true, first of all. And since this is a thread about a review, surely one's decision to buy or not buy the game will come up. Fair enough, eh?

2. Say that it isn't a good review, state your reasons, then move on. No amount of posting will change the review.

I could care less about the review in terms of chaning it. It's the reaction to the review and then the reaction to my reaction that keeps me posting, though I rate this exchange pretty dull as far as the pointless debates go.

3. People here really do seem tolerant of you. You say negative things about the game (for apparently your own reasons) on a forum dedicated to the game.

You new here? LOL!

[yin26]

Shiva: No. More than one battle with you in a quarter is too much for me! LOL

[Shiva]

Originally posted by yin26
Shiva: No. More than one battle with you in a quarter is too much for me! LOL

Lol peace