Personally, were I a game reviewer, I would not rate a game based on how it compares to current competitors. I would try to take into account all the games I've ever played, and how awesome they were relative to the levels of technology at the time, and use that as my measuring stick. I think you should measure a game by how close it came to its potential.
For me at least, comparing what RTW was (okay graphics, bad gameplay) to what it could have been (snazzy graphics, above-average gameplay), I would have given it a 75% or 80%. RTW in 2004 was not the equivalent of C&C in 1995 or Warcraft III in whatever year it came out. IMO, RTW in 2004 was not as good as MTW was in 2002 or STW was in 2001. If you only hold game companies to the standard set by their current competitors, then even kinda crappy games can get a good rating, especially if you're rating at a bad time for the genre, when little serious competition exists.
Anyway, MTW2 will be what it will be. Since CA is not asking our advice, and as such we have no impact on the game's development, we have only to decide, once it's out, whether it's worth $50 or not.
Bookmarks