Can't wait to see a review!

I would expect just a couple professional reviews to start popping up a few days before release. Gamespot is sometimes a bit slow to post reviews. They still have not posted a review of Praetorians, even though 8 sites of varring quality have (See www.gamerankings.com ). Including some of the more reliable reviewers, Gamesdomain and Gamespy. Gamespot is my favorite game site. They tend to play a game all the way through before righting their reviews, but their extensive coverage of so many platforms slows them down. I am a GS Complete member, and feel the money is well spent. I especially like Greg Kasavins reviews. The video format reviews are worth the download if you have the bandwith. I almost bought a copy of MOO3 based on a couple fansite reviews. Ouch, that would of hurt. Trueth is though no matter what the reviews say, this is one product I will be judging for myself the very day of release. Simply because with the type of AI that is promiced, I wouldn't care if the production values of the sound and video were a minor fraction of what they have put into it. It's all about gameplay to me.

Yeah Gamespot is slow, but it's the only site I trust. IGN is a joke, Gamespy is unreliable, and most other sites have really crappy coverage. That's why it's important to get those advance copies to Gamespot in a timely fashion. I'll bet the same guy who reviewed MOO3 will review this game, and he took forever to get the MOO3 review up. He's also not a great reviewer; his video review for MOO3 was PAINFUL. He seriously needs to work on his ummms and uuhhhs.

Mdelagra, I have to disagree on Gamespot. I do not trust them one bit. Their reviews are well written, but I have noticed too often the final rating is skewed toward the positive when the game has been heavily advertised on their site, and skewed to the negative when it's a small independant developer. I find the average reader ratings to be much more indicative of the quality of the game.

They managed to give starfleet command 3 a high rating and that game was fairly hard to control and got repetitive when you learned how to play. Half-way through the single player games, I got seriously bored and couldn't stand multiplayer. I also didn't like the portrayal that the Defiant was a weak ship - that's absurd considered it was developed to take on the Borg. In any case, the game was about a 65-70 but they managed to give 80 or higher.

If they give GalCiv anything less than a 4 out of 5 they cant have played the game...

/Andreas

And if they give it a 4, they havent played it enough..

There are many reviews out there, but one that just went up today is at www.lidiumonline.com/magazine/main.php

~SDC~

If you would like to see a review - check this out

http://www.lidiumonline.com/magazine/main.php

hope it helps

/Flemming

~SDC~

Just read it. Although their less than stellar writing skills showed through, (Review&Preview occilating), the articles were entertaining and informative. If you want a ton more (previews), go to www.gamerankings.com . Tons. Nine days and counting.

~SDC~

Nah, previews aren't going to cut it. Sites are invariably more forgiving of beta versions.

Question: if Gamespot is unreliable, what's the alternative? I don't think it's true that Gamespot favors the games it promotes. Just this week, they panned Tao Feng, despite having covered it very closely. Same with MOO3, and MOO3 also had a ton of advertising on the site.

Mdelagra - the LidiumOnline preview is based on the Gamma version, and is centered on gameplay, and describing the game processes - there is a conclusion, but most of it is fact.

/Flemming

~SDC~

RE:mdelagra

I use gamerankings.com and sorta combine and take a look. If a game ranges from 70% - 90%, then I would expect it to be about an 80% game.

However if it ranges from 20% - 100% then you need to beware.

I expect mid 80s scores for GalCiv only because 90% of the "reviewers" on the "scene" are graphics "whores" and well, GalCiv is about 4X not GFX

I don't think you can rely on any site to predict what you might or might not like. It might be a good indication if you found a particular reviewer that you agree with most of the time but in the end you have to play the game or the demo to really find out for yourself.

~SDC~

RE: Centaurian

True True. But reading review sites is called "Being an informed consumer". If you are willing to go out and purchase a product with no research then you diserve what you get be it good or bad.

The "informed" way is a little easier on one's personal economy though.

Would you buy a digital camera or a TV without checking up on some information? a car with no testdrive? Same differance when applied to software.

Metacritic.com can be useful.

~SDC~

Bundus,

You make a good point but I think most hardware reviewers (cameras, cars, tvs, etc.) tend to agree with each other. Game reviewers often disagree completely. IGN scored MOO3 a 9.2 which doesn't seem to be the popular opinion. I've seen other games score poorly at most sites and found I enjoyed the game.

~SDC~

Brad,

I agree a consensus is a better indication than a single review but it's still an opinion as opposed to the hard numbers you can get from testing a car or camera. I've really enjoyed some movies that scored under 10% at rottentomatoes and hated some that scored 80-90.

Besides, everyone should try GalCiv no?

~SDC~

Well my mom thinks GalCiv is good. Well no, no not really. But she thinks the box is "adequate".

"adequate."
-Brad's mom


~SDC~

^ LOL! If it's good enough for you mom, it's good enough for me.


~SDC~

hehe, that could be the new ultimate blue-stamping of a game - What does the developers mom think?

/Flemming

~SDC~

I don't care for Gamespot nearly as much as I did 1.. 1 and a yalf years ago. Now? Their reviews as someone said tend to pump up the huge titles, and blast the lesser known games. Some reviews are well written, but often completely MISSING certain elements of games. I don't trust Gamespot at all. An example. IL-2, Forgotten Battles was recently released. I and other WWII flight sim fans are quite certain this is THE best flight sim ever released. It is just phenomeneal. Yet Gamespot gives imo, a rather cruddy review, missing certain aspects of the game completely, and rated it an 8.6. Not a bad score mind you, but not representative of how good this game is. The users there rated it 9.2, which IMO, is more accurate. There are other titles as well, that I think they just horribly mangle. And when they went 'pay' for many things, I went there a LOT less than I did previously.

Another example. Dungeon Siege. IMO, as an RPG fan, one of the WORST rpgs I've seen in a long time. What a waste of my money! Gamespot gives it an 8.4. WHAT?! You gotta be kidding me. So IL-2 is just .2 better than Dungeon Siege?! *LMAO* No consistancy.

The BEST reviews I've seen so far are from avault. They have in depth, accurate reviews. The only problem is that they do a LOT less reviews than Gamespot. But I trust them MUCH more. Their reviews are excellent.

Gamesdomain is not bad either, for the most part. Aside from those 2, i'll go to www.gamerankings.com to get an overall feel, and finally read reader reviews.

Don't even get me started on gamespot..

fleabitfox

When I read reviews, I look for specific factual points the reviewers make, and then consider them from my perspective to help determine if I will like the game. For example, if I see several reviews that consistently tell me that the AI "assistants" in a game will routinely over-ride my decisions and won't allow me to turn them off, I KNOW that game will annoy me immensely and I will not personally have fun with it.

On the other hand, when reviews tell me the graphics seem "dated", I don't worry about it much no matter how big a point the reviewers make of it. I personally think killer graphics can really ADD to the atmosphere of a game, but as long as the graphics are clear and functional and are not so ugly that they emotionally pull me "out" of my immersion in the game, they do not DETRACT from the game either.

Since EB changed their return policy though, I generally buy substantially FEWER games than I used to, and it is very rare that I buy a game without first seeing multiple reviews to give me enough "facts" to tell me if I am likely to appreciate the game. I used to buy 1-2 games a month, but I probably returned 40% of them. Now since I can no longer do that when I don't like a game, I probably only buy 2-3 games a year. GalCiv and Morrowind are the only 2 games I bought before reading several full reviews in the last 2 years. :notsure:

--Soulfire

unless you know who the reviewer is and you know you share the same likes and dislikes, most reviews mean little. Its just their opinions...and like brains, almost everybody has one.
I read reviews that are glowing and I felt the game sucked, and I've read reviews that are awful, and I liked the game. Unless the reviewer uncovers game breaking bugs or things that simply do not work, you should almost know in your heart whether or not you will like a game based on YOUR OWN experience. Works for me anyway.

In my opinion, reviews should be pretty much straight forward about the game, mechanics, tech stuff and so forth, and the last 1/8 should be the reviewers own personal view on the game.

~SDC~

people tend to think the best reviews are those that they agree with.
case in point...the guy who thought Dungoen Siege was awful. I LIKE it. Had loads of run with it. Just my opinion. So I dont think that review of DS was wrong. The guy who hated DS thinks its wrong. So its ALL OPINION. You'll never win an agrument with another if you like the game and he doesnt (or vica versa.) Its like debating religon or politics in the sense that it's a no win situation.
By all means, check out reviews to be somewhat informed but in the end,
as George Harrison once sang: "THINK FOR YOURSELF."