WarGamer preview

[MarkG]

http://www.wargamer.com/reviews/moo3_preview/

[Epistax]

oooooh.... aaaahhh


edit:

AHH! POP UPS!

edit:

Hey nice, that leader has negatives as well as a positive.

[Alex]

Hm. I thought that the author would have to share his impressions on the game with us, the readers. He basically just described how the game works, giving few or no hints about how good or bad some of the features are. Not the most informative of previews I've read.

[Asmodean]

*Sound of Asmodean going to read the preview again*

*Sound of Asmodean coming back, having re-read the preview*

Nope...I don't agree with Alexnm. I think it is quite obvious that this guy likes MoO3.

Asmodean

[Urban Ranger]

Which reminds me, I have read a really negative review for a long long time... let alone previews.

[Kc7mxo]

Heh, pcgamer used to have some pretty sweet reviews of crummy games. I always used to look for any review of less than 40% just to read their comments.

[Asmodean]

Has anybody seen any bad previews of MoO3. I mean, there has been a lot of criticism over the missed deadlines, but bad reviews. Nope...I haven't seen a single.

Asmodean

[child of Thor]

...yes but how many bad pre/reviews did Civ3 get?

i'll wait till i get peoples responses here to see if its good or not.

[Alex]

Originally posted by child of Thor
...yes but how many bad pre/reviews did Civ3 get?

i'll wait till i get peoples responses here to see if its good or not.

Ditto.

[Xentax]

Originally posted by Asmodean
Has anybody seen any bad previews of MoO3. I mean, there has been a lot of criticism over the missed deadlines, but bad reviews. Nope...I haven't seen a single.

Asmodean

I don't think there is such a thing as a negative pre-view -- generally, whoever allows the preview makes a positive spin a requirement of getting to do the preview to begin with.

Negative reviews are entirely too rare these days, but that's because the popular sites have generally sold out -- they'd rather get to poorly review everything than risk publishers not letting them get an advance copy to review.

This is why sites on the fringe, or just people you know, are better sources for review -- they have no conflict of interest driving them to give a favorable review to something that doesn't deserve it.

[DavesWorld]

Originally posted by Xentax
generally, whoever allows the preview makes a positive spin a requirement of getting to do the preview to begin with.

Thus invalidating the preview for any purpose other than standard marketing (i.e., it is a commerical, not a preview, at that point).

You're right, most previews are deals cut between dev and writer, and as such most previews are smacking into the rules that PROFESSIONAL journalism has related to allowing subjects of articles to review/comment/edit upon the article (i.e., they don't allow such prior reviews).

Sad, really. Gamers are being forced to wait until after release to get real data on games now. It's like devs are only really interested in our money, not in if we like and enjoy their game. Shouldn't the later lead to profits when a game is good? Guess marketing folks disagree.

[Lee Johnson]

Nobody's forcing you to buy games on their release date; you can always wait for feedback post-release if you're concerned about wasting your money on a game you might not like.