PCGamer Release

BLackraven42 · November 21, 2001, 19:48

PCgamer has just released its holiday issue with a 2 page article on Civ 3. For those of you without the game, this would be great. Civ 3 got a 92%!

Capt Dizle · November 21, 2001, 20:24

Yeah. What did they give Black and White?

Compugasm 2 · November 21, 2001, 20:33

I smell kickbacks with that review.

Setsuna · November 21, 2001, 20:42

Old school PCGamer would never have given such a sloppy game such a high score. It would have scored in the 70's range at the absolute most. They would have mercilessly ripped it to shreds.

*Sigh*

Oerdin · November 21, 2001, 20:45

I saw that review and I must say I was some what disappointed. I mean I'm glade Civ 3 did well but the whole review was a blatent A$$ kiss on the part of PCGamer. There was very little constructive criticism and a whole lot of Sid worshipping.

I would have profered an objective review that said such and such was well done but feature X was poorly thought out and could have been done better. Instead it simply told us to go out and buy it. So much for principled journalism...

Compugasm 2 · November 21, 2001, 21:16

Yeah, and i am one of those who bought the game based on the 93% rating, brand recognition, and SMAC. I got burned, but i learned a lesson. If your thinking about buying a game, wait two weeks and read the boards. Its the only way to find out how good a game really is. Since i can't depend on the reviews as i used too, i didn't renew my subscription. My money would have been better spent on credit card bills.

Zizka · November 22, 2001, 11:23

In general I am finding that PC gaming magazines are really beginning to suck the heinie. Not only do they have 80% ads, lame, buy-a-reviewer reviews and usually a group of self-worshipping writers convinced that they are so "khule" and that every word that spills from their pens is a revelation from on high.

Yets was pisses me off more than ever is the balatant price rip offs magazines can retail from 5-10 bucks and for a lousy 100 pages (most of it ads and drivel). I fondly remeber 400 page mostesr filled with useful tips (not just game sbut hardware, mod programming, and critical reviews). The funny thing is that many publication claim that lower advert ratios prevent them from making bigger magazines or having more features. Yet I find that ad/articles ratio is higher than ever.

Web sites are in general no different. APolyton ha snot gotten to be too bad (LOL why i'm still here) but most sites have become banner-filled sombody worshipping syncopants.

I admit the publishing inustry (whether web-or print) is based on money making yet I cannot believe how incredible naive and sanctimonious some of them are often blaming consumers for their own failing fortunes. Whenever they acknowledge that, in the remotest possibility for "improvement" usually results in more "khule" staff and uglier and more ad filled visual design and even greater butt coverage.

my .02

Z

Archmage · November 23, 2001, 02:49

Here's what you do. Take PCGamer's review which is generally too forgiving and average it with CGW's review, which is generally overly harsh. CGW SAVAGED Tribes2, which sucks ass, and Myst 7 or whatever the newest boring point and click Myst is right now. I agree that gaming magazines have too many ads, but I think both CGW and PCGamer are well-written, humorous and worth my money. Just my opinion. But take a look at ANY magazine these days. I subscribe to Playboy, Maxim, SportingNews, PCGamer, Mens Health, etc... I think PCGamer gives me my money's worth. Their demo discs are terrific. Whereas CGW's never work quite as well...I also never feel that either of them are whoring themselves out in the name of business interests. Perhaps I'm naive. PCGamer also gave 93% to Ghost Recon and I'd probably give it about an 80% because of weird bugs and anomalies. You also have to remember that the gaming magazines get better versions than we do to review. They get patched and updated versions before we can even buy the games off shelves. I think Civilization III is about a 92% game. The only reason most of are whining is because a game of this scope leaves itself open to criticism on so many fronts. All I know is CivIII is a lot of fun, despite it's flaws. I can name 10 improvements over Civ II for every slide. All my opinion. I could be wrong. I usually am...

Wrong_shui · November 23, 2001, 11:12

OLD SCHOOL!

Zizka · November 23, 2001, 11:30

>>You also have to remember that the gaming magazines get better versions >>than we do to review. They get patched and updated versions before we can >>even buy the games off shelves.

Whhhat? Where did you hear that, I was under the impression it wa sthe other way around as most magazines get their review copies a lot ealier so they can print their "review" usually about teh same time the game is released. Thus they would have had to get their copy months ago. How can it be better? Unless their "copies" are rigged to play differently.

Z

Solver · November 23, 2001, 11:42

People, the only way to judge the game is by having it yourself. Reviews do, of course, say it's good, many people here say it's bad, but now that I have this, I can personally say this is the best game I've ever played.

Recurve · November 23, 2001, 12:03

Quote:

Originally posted by Solver
I can personally say this is the best game I've ever played.

Solver, you've just tipped my scales in favour of buying. I hope it's £30 well spent.

zapperio · November 23, 2001, 12:08

Quote:

Originally posted by Solver
many people here say it's bad, but now that I have this, I can personally say this is the best game I've ever played.

By my guesstimate I'd say the vocal majority here, likes the game. Check out the story forum and see how many, simply, adore it.

But then I'm biased, as I'm on the side of good.

Zap

Solver · November 23, 2001, 13:04

There's another thing to consider. Many who have it and like it,play without posting, those who hav and don't like, whine here. I will soon play without any posting too, I guess.
BTW, yes, the stories forum is nice.

Oerdin · November 23, 2001, 14:04

Quote:

Originally posted by Compugasm 2
Yeah, and i am one of those who bought the game based on the 93% rating, brand recognition, and SMAC. I got burned, but i learned a lesson. If your thinking about buying a game, wait two weeks and read the boards. Its the only way to find out how good a game really is.

I agree that the "fan" reviews on the MBs provide a much better review then the game magazines plus the MBs are free. Now I'm not sure if buying Civ3 constitutes getting "burned" but it does seem that the good points of the game were exagerated and the poor parts were not meantioned.
If Firaxis delivers a comprehensive patch (which is a big if since patches don't generate profits) then the game can still be ground breaking. The way it stands right now though I think I'd give it a C+... but I freely admite I don't own the game I have mirely played it at a friends house. So you can take it or leave it.

GodSpawn · November 23, 2001, 14:43

I too think Civ3 is great. I'd probably only give it 90% though.

Timeline · November 23, 2001, 15:01

Quote:

Originally posted by Solver
There's another thing to consider. Many who have it and like it,play without posting, those who have and don't like, whine here. I will soon play without any posting too, I guess.
BTW, yes, the stories forum is nice.

Yeah, this is me. I have been playing the game in all my spare time, way too busy playing to post anything.

So all you folks who are thinking of buying the game, keep in mind, this is probably a somewhat one sided forum in general, because all the ones who love it don't want to hang around with a bunch of complainers and would rather play.

Those for whom the game doesn't work, or those who don't like something about it, have nothing other to do than sit around here, waiting for the patch.

So don't base too heavily your decision on the reactions here . . . even though there is nothing wrong with waiting until a patch . . .