Finally! An Alexander Review (By Gamespot)

**The Spartan (Returns)** · 06-21-2006, 22:15

And here it is!

read this when youre done reading the review:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

**Mooks** · 06-22-2006, 02:11

Im just wondering. Is there a game info site that DOESNT include completely optimistic reviews? Theres nothing wrong with gamespot, just every game that iv read about is "Great, fantastic, best of teh year" ..Kind of like the back of books.

**econ21** · 06-22-2006, 09:23

It's a good review - the reviewer has obviously played the game (I've also grown to love my phalanx + companions - nothing else competes). I was about to give up on the campaign last night as I hired a raft of mercenaries (including 2 companions) so it no longer looked such an uphill struggle. But the review makes me want to persist with it.

I rather like Gamespot's reviews - if you read this one carefully, it's rather nuanced (no diplomacy, just battles; not as engaging as a normal TW campaign etc). They only really rave about games when they are rated 9+, which tends to be reserved for the really high profile games. Some times I disagree with them - for example, giving Vampire Bloodlines a score of 7, when it was a work of genius.

**phred** · 06-22-2006, 16:24

Originally Posted by econ21

It's a good review - the reviewer has obviously played the game (I've also grown to love my phalanx + companions - nothing else competes). I was about to give up on the campaign last night as I hired a raft of mercenaries (including 2 companions) so it no longer looked such an uphill struggle. But the review makes me want to persist with it.

I concur. It's an accurate review. I don't know if I would have given the game an 8.5, but the text of the review is spot-on.

**Quillan** · 06-22-2006, 19:38

I don't have the expansion, so I can't say if the review is accurate or not. However, Gamespot tends to be rather conservative in their rankings; they rarely give really high scores unless a game truly deserves it. What I find confusing about them is how they sometimes rate the same game with different scores depending on the platform.

**The Spartan (Returns)** · 06-22-2006, 22:01

me either. thats why i asked if it should have got that score. but Gamespot doesnt always give optomistic reviews. IGN.com gave Alexander a reward.

**Krauser** · 06-25-2006, 06:27

Originally Posted by The Spartan

me either. thats why i asked if it should have got that score. but Gamespot doesnt always give optomistic reviews. IGN.com gave Alexander a reward.

I would rate it closer to 8.0 or 8.2. And a reward from IGN? IGN reviews never seem to be very accurate because the reviewer is rarely neutral; they're a big fan of the series or something so of course they think it's the best. It's okay to be a fan of the series but you have to compare it to the rest of the games released in the year.

**Seasoned Alcoholic** · 06-25-2006, 22:22

I think Gamepsot are fairly decent independent reviewers. This is justified by rating Half-Life 2 and its ground-breaking physics engine at 9.2, when realistically the game had set brand new benchmarks.

When a game achieves a 9+ rating, at least it will have earnt it at Gamespot, I'd hardly say that they're a load of fanboys that rate everything as good material.