Amusing to see all the worshipful reviews...

[Blackadar1]

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%.

[n.c.]

Excellent. Hopefully you will stick around to remind people what they can and cannot say.

[Asharak]

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.

[Evil Robot]

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".

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well, I'd give it a 90+, so I don't think there is anything wrong with the reviews

[Adm.Naismith]

Re: On the Original Topic of This Thread

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...

[Bubba_B]

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.

[Grumbold]

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.

[Bubba_B]

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.....

[Setsuna]

*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]

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!