What do you think of those game reviews?

[microbe]

Frankly speaking I'm pretty pissed off. These reviewers don't seem to do much homework, and almost in every review I could find some serious errors.

For example, one review said C3C has 8, not 9, scenarios. Another review I just saw today (het, it's in the CFC frontpage!) mentioned PTW as RTW (Rule The World).

I mean, this kind of errors could never happen to someone who actually _played_ the game.

In general, very few reviewers could have their own unique opinions. Sometimes it makes me doubt any of them really played it seriously.

I think I can do a better job.

 

[FenrysWulf]

One thing I noticed on the reviews is that almost everyone makes it sound like PTW was total crap. I was happy with PTW, but then I just wanted more civs to play with. I'm not sure what was so bad about it.

 

[Mongoloid Cow]

I saw one review call the expansion 'Civilization 3 Conflicts'

 

[Bamspeedy]

These reviewers don't seem to do much homework, and almost in every review I could find some serious errors.

Yeah, some of them obviously haven't played the game, or know much about Civ. I would be more upset at the more recent 'reviews' than at the people who were doing the earlier 'previews'. This is because those doing the 'previews' were playing the beta version, and things get changed before the final release.

Who knows, maybe some of them were supposed to do a preview, but ran out of time and so then did a review, but using the information from when they played the beta version (for the preview).

But then you have to consider how many different games these guys have to play (and preview/review). I'm sure they don't get much time to actually play too much of one particular game.

I treat all of the reviewers as if they are a total newbie to the game, and just basing their opinions on what a person thats never played a Civ game thinks about it. ('First impressions', sort of thing). Most of the games and movies I like, the 'reviewers' didn't give it a very good rating, so I never trust reviewers.

 

[Bamspeedy]

Originally posted by FenrysWulf
One thing I noticed on the reviews is that almost everyone makes it sound like PTW was total crap. I was happy with PTW, but then I just wanted more civs to play with. I'm not sure what was so bad about it.

Having new civs to choose from was easily done with the editor or downloading from the internet. I was happy with PTW, too, but I can understand the negative viewpoint. PTW didn't have much for 'new features'.

If you compare what PTW offered to what Conquests offers, then you will see that PTW should have been more like what Conquests is.

 

[JtheJackal]

Originally posted by microbe
Frankly speaking I'm pretty pissed off. These reviewers don't seem to do much homework, and almost in every review I could find some serious errors.

For example, one review said C3C has 8, not 9, scenarios. Another review I just saw today (het, it's in the CFC frontpage!) mentioned PTW as RTW (Rule The World).

I mean, this kind of errors could never happen to someone who actually _played_ the game.

In general, very few reviewers could have their own unique opinions. Sometimes it makes me doubt any of them really played it seriously.

I think I can do a better job.

Sounds like these are more like typos.

 

[user37852]

A lot of smaller game sites don't actually play the game before reviewing it...

I think GameZone's review of Conquests was the worst. Mistake after mistake - and not just typos!

 

[kring]

I learned a long time ago to take reviews and ignore most of them. Too often, the reviewer is influenced heavily by one of two things: 1) personal bias and/or 2) money factor. The first one is easy to recognize most of the time. The second one is the worst since many reviews are slanted to ensure that Game companies will stilll advertise with them.

I visit fansites, talk to friends, and when possible play demo or trial versions of any games that I want to buy.

 

[Fanny Brice]

Originally posted by kring
I learned a long time ago to take reviews and ignore most of them. Too often, the reviewer is influenced heavily by one of two things: 1) personal bias and/or 2) money factor. The first one is easy to recognize most of the time. The second one is the worst since many reviews are slanted to ensure that Game companies will stilll advertise with them.

True... very true. This is the way most media works. Don't trash a potential advertiser because this is our bread and butter. Don't be too harsh on any subject because potential advertisers are watching. Very, very few news or other media outlets are credible.

I agree with the comments on the reviews. Most seem to be written exactly the same and don't say much about much. As a player, you can tell they have little knowledge of the game when they are focusing on a certain topic you know to be a non-issue.

 

[bru]

Welcome to the media world where quality in not ecessarily “Job One”