Still No CivIII Reviews Online?

Comrade Tribune · October 29, 2001, 13:51

Didn´t the reviewers get advance copies?

CygnusZ · October 29, 2001, 14:09

Expect a few tonight... in the very least we'll be getting the avault.com and I'd wager a guess and say that Gamespot will put one up too.

Comrade Tribune · October 29, 2001, 14:37

I hope; but I would have expected a few reviews a week ago already; were they forbidden to do that, or given the advance copies too late to review the game before it hits the stores?

What is bothering me is that that might be a bad sign.

ixnay · October 29, 2001, 14:41

I'd imagine that ign will have one up at their next update...

Pembleton · October 29, 2001, 15:03

Review sites get a lot of criticism for getting reviews out too early because they assume they haven't played the game enough. Most people don't know that review sites usually get advance copies.

You get a lot of "how can you review the game...it's only been out 1 or 2 days?" "How can you trust a reviewer that hasn't played the game?"

If they put a review out before the game's released, people will assume that it's a review of the beta and not the gold version.

I've seen sites like Games Domain have to defend themselves in an editorial that they have played games to completion and will only put a review out when they have done so.

Green Giant · October 29, 2001, 16:07

Many of the major review sites have had the game for about 2 weeks now. That is ample time to post a worthy review.

Steve Clark · October 29, 2001, 16:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Green Giant
Many of the major review sites have had the game for about 2 weeks now. That is ample time to post a worthy review.

Having the game and playing the game for 2 weeks are two different things. Besides, most reviews should be taken with a grain of salt due to hidden agendas and biases.

Comrade Tribune · October 29, 2001, 17:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Steve Clark
Besides, most reviews should be taken with a grain of salt due to hidden agendas and biases.

If there is no review, how can I take it with a grain of salt?

Comrade Tribune · October 29, 2001, 20:24

DP.

Comrade Tribune · October 29, 2001, 20:26

Curiouser and curiouser.

When did you hear the last time about a game released surrounded with so much hype, and not a single review available?

Rakki · October 29, 2001, 20:36

Hypothetical Scenario:

Editor: "Where the hell is that Civ 3 review Jim ? I expected it in my e-mail by yesterday !"
Jim Reviewer: "Huh ?"
Editor: "Jim, where's that goddam Civ 3 reivewe ?"
Jim the Reviewer: "Civ 3 ? Review ?"
Editor: "Yessss Civ 3 REVIEW !"
Jim the Reviewer: "I'm still working on it.. I've only just started playing it. "
Editor: "What the hell have you been doing ? You got the advanced copy 2 weeks ago !"
Jim the Reviewer blinks, and the Editor notices his bloodshot eyes.
"Has it been that long ?"

Jim collapses, and dies.

Editor: "Oh ****... " (picks up phone) "Personnel ? I need another reviewer up here in the strategy section... and make sure it's a quake shooter. No, you heard me right... a Quake shooter. I don't CARE if they hate strategy games. They are the only people who are likely to actually FINISH writing a review on this game... "

Comrade Tribune · October 29, 2001, 20:43

You may be right.

On the other hand, if a game mightily sucks, the producers are known to use every trick in the book to slow down the reviews...

Comrade Tribune · October 29, 2001, 21:45

If they changed the game to the last minute -so that not even the manual is accurate-, this means they cannot have tested the latest changes at all.

I do not really share the optimistic appraisal of the situation.

Alexander's Horse · October 30, 2001, 00:59

Most game site reviews are crap because of their parasitic relationship with game makers.

Better to wait till some of the better players get the game and post what they think. Most of the opinions posted today have been from newbies and you can tell they arent good players.