quote:
Originally posted by Grier on 11-24-2000 11:14 AM
I only read the edited version, and though the review was harsh, it seems like a valid opinion. Whenever you think about getting a game you should look for more than one review anyway, just to make sure that you have a range of opinions.
|
I agree on checking multiple sources. (That doesn't excuse IGN, though...)
I don't think the review was good because it wholly omits or only most limitedly covers key features of the game, such as the scenarios, CTPII's customizability, the AI intelligence at different levels, and unconventional warfare.
It's kinda like saying, volvos look boxy and nonaerodynamic, and thus you shouldn't buy them; without examining their safety, their maintenance costs, durability, handling, whatever. Examining these features may lead the consumer to think volvos still are a bad buy, but at least a reviewer should examine them. Otherwise it's not a review just an overview. Which is what the IGN article is.
This is a problem with internet reviews in general. People can say whatever they want and just can't be held highly accountable. If this was a print review, I think the accountability would be much higher.
On the other side, it's not like there aren't a bazillion recources like IGN only clicks away -- a bad review is only their loss in the long run. I liked gamespot's (for instance) coverage much more because it offered so much more information that allowed the reader to make a choice (and offers space for reader reviews and other opinions). I don't care if IGN didn't like the game; I think that's totlly good. I'd like to know why so I can make my own decision about buying it.
After talking with them, I don't think IGN is getting my eyes again.
-mario
