I had fun with Dungeon Siege too, but it sure did have its flaws. I had to think of DS as a graphical update to Diablo 2 to fully appreciate it. The biggest problems with it were that the classes were totally out of "balance" in terms of their relative capabilities, and the fact that the games higher levels of difficulty (for high level characters) were ineffective at providing the correct amount of challenge or rewards to keep the game fun and interesting. It really needed a much better system for sharing experience/loot equally among the party in MP mode too.

--Soulfire

wampyre, I disagree. You can review things with an objective mind. For instance, if the game has bugs, a poor user interface, is slower than it should be, has poor graphics and lacks features that current games already have (this the game is somewhat outdated), has poor voice acting and sounds and wide range of other problems, you can mark a game's score down a few points for each of these reasons that I listed without even talking about the fun-factor of the game.

I used to like AVault too, but now it's coverage is SO poor it's not useful to the serious game consumer. I've rarely been disappointed with a game that got a decent review from Gamespot, and when there is an occasional exception it seems that most other sites like the game too, so I can just chalk it up to personal opinion. For example, does anybody else think Ghost Recon is a stinkfest? Same IMO with most of the Resident Evil games, blech. But when Gamespot say a game is BAD, I'm inclined to believe them.

When reviews are mixed, Gamespot tends to get it right, at least as far as I'm concerned. Some sites really panned ZOE2, but Gamespot gives it thumbs up and I agree. (Oops, you caught me. Yes, my comments indicate that I have an XBox, a GameCube, AND a PS2. It's because I'm so picky about my games.

I'm tempted to just buy GalCiv, but I was tempted to buy MOO3 too and I'm sure glad (and Stardock is glad too) that I held out. If IGN says it's the best game in human history, I'm still not going to get it. IGN sucks.

Thank you Frogboy, I'm serfing the www.metacritic.com site right now.
It just made it to my top five list.

As for gamespot etc. It takes a real gamer to do an indepth review. And real gamers get emotionally involved in their entertainment. Enthusiasim and the potential a game has for it, negates the possibility of a completely objective review. IGN and some others I think are too worried about being a wet towel on the pass time and their business in general. Reader reviews may often be off the wall but their average rating has real meaning as well.


~SDC~

eqervari- points well taken but I still say one should think for themselves. I also stated in a previous post that one can use reviews to stay informed. You can find out all you might want about bugs or graphics or gameplay, but in the end its your own experience that should be the deciding factor.
Case in point: Warcraft 3. Great reviews..its the be all/end all of RTS. Only thing is, I dont like RTS so no matter how wonderful the RTS gameplay was described or how great the graphics are,it didnt mean crap (to ME) since I have had experience with that type of game, and I cant stand them any longer. Others, who love RTS already no doubt just used the review as confirmation.
I'm not saying all reviews are worthless, only that they are only a part of the decision making process. A much bigger part should be the careful perusal of forums like this (and others) where you have folks who have played the game (or betas) much more than a typical reviwer would.
Cheers.

I mainly care whether the game is fun.

~SDC~

Frogboy said;

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

"adequate."
-Brad's mom


I didn't know I had a brother!

Mom, God Bless Her.

Elrikk


~SDC~

Wampire, if you have the bandwith you might try the demo of Warcraft III. It sucked me all the way through the game to the very end. And I have completed very few games. Command & Conquer Generals was rated very high but I hated it. But WC has personality in spades as well as great sound effect and music to draw you in. The last level is murder though.

~SDC~

RustyBlade...thanks but I bought Warcraft 3 and deleted from my drive.Yeah I tried it because I thought that (as I did for Age of Myth) that THIS one would be different. I WAS blown away by the graphics, but I found that the gameplay was too much like all the other RTS games out there. Dont get me wrong, if you love RTS, I'm sure you'd love Warcraft, or any other finely made RTS;and whether I like these games or not I DO know a quality product when I see it and WC3is quality.But I just dont get off on them anymore;havent for years. To me, its just build the bestest the fastest and rush. Maybe i'm missing something here.
Anyway, glad you like it. We all have our likes and dislikes but what we all have in common is THE GAMES.
Cheers.

Right on. Like you say some styles of games just don't turn us on. Like shooters for me. I like to download the demos and check em out but I never play more than a level. (Accept Splinter Cell, bought that one, more of a creep and dodge game.) AOW II style games, beatiful game, lovely music, same for Morrowind, but just doesn't draw me in. Hope you were able to return the Warcraft III.

~SDC~

Here is the latest interview. The link comes from the GalCiv homepage. 3/18/03

http://www.ve3d.com/Articles.aspx?Mode=Galciv

~SDC~