Gamezilla and Actiontrip Reviews

Forgot to post scores. First one (Gamezilla) is a 'recommended buy' and the other (Actiontrip) a 74/100.

That Actiontrip review is kinda silly. Everyone is entitlted to their opinion, but he really took a lot of points off for graphics. He seems to conclude that since the game is based on an OS/2 game, the graphics aren't as good as some 3D games today.

quote...
"Since this a remake of an ancient OS/2 strategy, we didn't expect to encounter any ground-breaking and jaw-dropping GeForce-powered real-time 3D action."

You would think he might have came to this conclusion based on the genre itself. 4x games don't generally use the Unreal engine. It's like criticizing Raven Shield for not having a tech tree.

since i've never heard of Actiontrip i pay no attention to their reviews. I only pay attention to reviewers that I've read and trusted. Once I get a feel for how their opinions concur or differ from mine, I get a good comfort level. Plus, I'd rather read personal reviews on a forum vs taking ONE guys word for it anyway. Also remember, a review is only an opinion, and like brains, almost everybody has one!

Same with me. I try and find a review site that rates some of the games I like and prefer good. I think Gamespot does a pretty good job but I mostly rely on the reaction from the gamers themselves. Those are the ones that really matter. I also spend time in the forums of the official site and fan sites to learn things. Thats how I ended up here when I decided NOT to get MOO3. When MOO3 got slammed by its own fans I knew it was in trouble.

It's not a 3-D game. Apples and oranges. Jeez.

the fact that the dweeb even found fault because of the lack of 3d graphics should tell ya right there the youre reading a review from a twit. maybe he normally reviews gamecube and gameboy and found himself out of his element.

wampyre, i don't think that's true. if he was just a frothing fps monkey, he would have slammed the game for the lack of multiplayer. i thought his review was fair for the most part. there is truth in what he said; some of the graphics in GalCiv are outdated for a 4x game being made in 2003, but that has mostly to do with the game's development budget i suppose. not all the graphics are bad, though - i think the UI and the CG renders are better than MOO3, but the ship sprites look more like a shareware game.

it's possible that site is comprised mostly of mainstream gamers, in which case it would be fair to warn his readership about the graphics.

sebadoh- points well taken, I was too harsh. Anyway, I fall back on my earlier statement: I trust reviwers that I have experience with (they like the games I like and dont like the games I dont like etc) because If our tastes are similar it gives me more confidence. At this point though, reviews shouldnt matter that much to anyone who has the game as we already KNOW. The only thing I am using reviews of GalCiv for now are to compare their views with what I already know so I can tell if that reviewer is on the same sheet of music as me. And for the record, I think the graphics are fine. There is a place for 3d and it is not necessarily good everywhere.
Cheers.