-
Every month i lustfully await the arrival of my copy of PCGAMER (the british version)and here it comes but whats this theres something else in the plastic casing other than the magazine and the demos, its the the PCGAMER TOP 100 AWARDS.
No prize to guess which game came first...medieval totalwar.
Contrary to gil's earlier post about this, i thought you might like to hear it from a fellow gamer, be proud that you are comitted to the best gamer ever bar STW.
------------------
"The good fighters of the old first put themselves beyond the possibility of defeat, and then waited for an oppurtunity to defeat the enemy."
-
I guess they never tried playing multi-player.
------------------
Subject or Object?
-
maybe the SP is good enough to qualify for best game.
------------------
http://members.truepath.com/sapphoo/horse.gif
-
Understood. I do love this game.
I didn't play STW--bought a copy last year but never got around to installing it--but I feel as though I've been waiting for this game for a long, long time. It's excellent. But I cannot annoint any game to #1 status when they so throroughly failed to support one of their hotly advertised features. Without online play, I don't know that I would have bought this game...All that being said, I am glad to have played and especially glad to have found a community of ultra-dorky gamers that I can tap into at work.
------------------
Subject or Object?
-
just play SP until they fix MP. It's nice you know.
------------------
http://members.truepath.com/sapphoo/horse.gif
-
Yes SP on expert, fun fun big challenge its easy then it gets hard as your forces spread thinner and thinner in their lust for more florins.
------------------
"The good fighters of the old first put themselves beyond the possibility of defeat, and then waited for an oppurtunity to defeat the enemy."
-
The latest issue (Dec) of the US version of PCGamer also has reviewed MTW. I just had a chance to browse through the review while at the software store. I gathered that the reviewer was a fan, and liked the game very much.
He did have some complaints and pointed outa few thing that he thought were flaws
in the campaign structure. He hit the nail on the head when he said that alliances hardly seem worth the effort, since you could not travel through an ally's lands and they never joined you in battle. (It is rare, but I have had an ally join me once in battle)
I don't think he evern touched on multiplayer, but as I said I was just browsing and basically reading the mag for free.
Anyway, they gave it a rating of 82%. This is a very good rating by their standards, but not a total rave review. They usually reserve a 90% plus for rave reviews, which they gave to Battleground 1942 in the same issue.
Their reviewere are not that consistant though. I have seen them give quite a few games a 90% that I bet they wish they could have taken back after these same games were out long enough for players to discover tons of problems that they glossed over or totally missed in their reviews.
Of course any review is usually only one man's opinion, and you know what your proctologist says about opinions.
Cheers
------------------
Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl.
[This message has been edited by Forward Observer (edited 10-30-2002).]
-
PC Gamer US gave Shogun an 84%. I can understand MTW getting an 82% not because it was any worse than Shogun but because it didnt improve CONSIDERABLY over it, so an 82% is about right - however with a patch etc the game could easily fetch a 90%. Anyhow my point is an 84% for Shogun seems pretty low considering it was the first game to introduce RTS big battles with THOUSANDS of troops, not dribblets like in other RTS games. (and 3D mind you).
-
reviews are helpful in determing what game you may want to pick up next, but i always take em with a grain o salt. i always find myself looking at the ads in the magazines or the pop ups at websites. nine times outta ten, the reviewers are being paid to advertise the very product their reviewing.
i just find that a little odd.
-
I agree with the last poster : those "reviews" are just fake. Those magazines are too dependent from the companies. Without their ads, "previews" and "exclusive information" the magzines are nothing.
-
well British PCG isn't to bad usually, although i have seen some issues where they give a low review score, only for the next page to be a full positive ad for the same game :S go figure eh
-
Quote Originally posted by t1master:
reviews are helpful in determing what game you may want to pick up next, but i always take em with a grain o salt. i always find myself looking at the ads in the magazines or the pop ups at websites. nine times outta ten, the reviewers are being paid to advertise the very product their reviewing.
i just find that a little odd.[/QUOTE]
Your probably right to an extent, but none of us have insider information on the gaming industry, although i wouldnt be suprised if companies lay out cash for a good review. however, just remember this - the people who buy these magazines lay out cash and expect somewhat realistic reviews, otehrwise they wont buy it. pc magazines have a strong commintment to attract readers by providing objective useful information. also, pc magazines get most of their money from advertisements, and again advertisers are concerned with advertisements which reach a borad audience, which brings us back to point 1, pc magazines must build a large audience by making credible and realistic reviews, even though they arent perfect. however, one can argue that pc magazine tilts the review up a slight amount for a cash "donation" from the games publisher. (has anyone noticed gamespots reviews have a tilt, this is a rather strange category. notice that the total war games get high tilt scores - why do you need a tilt score when you have a similar score called "value"? somethings fishy here!
-
Great to hear this !!
And I (IMHO) declare:
MTW ROCKS !!!!!!!
Yes Yes I know it needs improvement but so does everything :P
POWER TO THE SULTAN !!
SeljukSinan
-------------
Clan Seljuk
