Guest DarthMaulUK Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 Please post all the reviews - not previews that you find here - thanks 23/02/06 - Eurogamer reviews EaW with a 7 http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=63018 17/02/06 - Gameplasma gives EaW 8 - http://www.gamerankings.com/itemrankings/launchreview.asp?reviewid=666711 16/02/06 - 8.7 from Gamespot http://www.gamerankings.com/itemrankings/launchreview.asp?reviewid=666350 16/02/06 - Gamefeeder scores 4.5/5 - http://www.gamerankings.com/itemrankings/launchreview.asp?reviewid=666474 16/02-/6 - 1UP gives it 8UP! http://www.gamerankings.com/itemrankings/launchreview.asp?reviewid=666299 15/02/06 IGN scores EaW @ 7.6 http://pc.ign.com/articles/688/688963p1.html 15/02/06 - IGN Video review http://media.pc.ign.com/media/713/713904/vids_1.html 09/02/06 - Game Informer gives EaW 8.5 http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/6799/eawgireview9sp.jpg DMUK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evenflow80 Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 I heard Game Informer gave it an 8.25 in thier latest issue. If anyone here reads Game Informer, anything less than, say, an 8.75 they tend to trash in the text of the review. I don't know why they do that, as technically an 8.25 is supposed to be above average approaching excellent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spam57 Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 wow game informer surely is a bad site in my opinion, to give a game like that an 8.25 is rather low, i mean what are they expecting... the greatest game EVER to hit the shelves, sure the originial CnC was the best RTS game of all time hands down for its time, but this game in my opinion deserves more than an 8.25. I cant wait to see what Gamespot gives EaW, Gamespot has the best reviewers and im anticipating a pretty high score because Petroglyph put A LOT of hardwork into this game. Either way, in my opinion, this game doesnt deserve a 10, but definitly a 9.8-9.4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DarthMaulUK Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 Although I love this game (my review will follow once PC gamer hits the shelves here) it's not Rome total War or Dawn Of War - the bench marks for any RTS game. I know for a fact that the guys at Petro loved Rome and enjoyed what relic did with DoW. But its going to be interesting to see what the gaming press make of EaW DMUK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xyvik Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 I cant wait to see what Gamespot gives EaW, Gamespot has the best reviewers and im anticipating a pretty high score because Petroglyph put A LOT of hardwork into this game. Gamespot are console lovers, and I tend to trust their reviews the least. IGN/Gamespy/Game Revolution are usually the ones I listen to, but then again, I've never been one to listen to the critics. Also, to throw just one more opinion around, I do not consider either R:TW or DoW to be RTS benchmarks. Yes, R:TW rules, but it is primarily a turn-based strategy game, not an RTS. As for DoW, that game is far too action-oriented and hero-affected to be a good RTS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SRF_Vader Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 Well, Gamespot actually arent console bias. I've actually seen a lot of the Gamespot PC Reviewers bitch about consoles..alot. Especially in their newsletter . I trust gamespot more than any other reviewers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gswift Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 I'm not sure if the intent of this thread was to talk about the reviews or to just post links to them, but here goes... I read the IGN review, and I'm quite skeptical of it. I almost picked out so many blatant inaccuracies about the game in that article that I'd sue them if I were Petroglyph or Lucas Arts. If you're going to report on something and state facts, you should check them first (Never mind the speling and gramor errers in the revew) (Please excuse MY spelling and grammar, but I'm not a professional writer like the IGN people are supposed to be and I don't spell-check my forum posts). Just reading the designer diaries on Gamespot and playing the un-modded demo will put lie to some of the things IGN said. It's like they spent less time playing than they did installing the game. Also, it's obvious that they didn't bother with the patch, even though it was announced. They complained about a couple of things that are fixed in the first patch, which was released before the official release date (02/16/2006). They just rushed to post a review, hoping that people like me would read it. I won't make the mistake of visiting IGN's web site again any time soon. People who post on community sites like this seem to be better informed although WE are not professional journalists. I have several more points I would make about inaccuracies, but this post is already long. IF you've read this far, and want to know more about why they gave a poor rating, then, heaven help you, read the darn thing. I wouldn't be surprised if they make corrections and/or issue an apology at some point. I read it because I wanted to be more informed about what I'll be installing tomorrow. However, I see that I'm already more informed than they are, so I'll reserve my opinion about the game until I have it in my hand and play it for myself. PS: If there were only a 24-hour game store in town... It's past midnight, and the dark side is strong in this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slocket Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 IGN was really harsh. The game is no 10, but I give it a 9.0. If it had Diplomacy/maintenance/turn-based and more like Rebellion for us hardcore -then it would be spot on 10 for me. I looked that extra stuff was going to be included, but axed due to the dead line. Petrogyph did an amazing job really in just two years development time. I think if they have a chance at an expansion to include more.... I guess IGN et el like their FPS and companies that grease their hands. I read reviews made by other gamers, via gamespot side notes and other spots. Real gamers, Real reviews. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evenflow80 Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 You know guys, there IS such a thing as an opinion, you know? Even with that being said, anything between a 6.5-9.9 seems like a fair score to give this game IMO. Its not groundbreaking by any means and if it didn't have the SW license, would you REALLY be that interested in it? The IGN score is fair, so is the GI score. Then again, what's "fair" for me might not be "fair" to someone else. Anyway, this always happens when a new game comes out. If people don't see the score they were expecting, automatically the site/mag that reviewed it is garbage and people make up all sorts of contrived excuses. There IS no "right" score, its all 100% subjective. Frankly, IGN and Gamespot are great, I sure as hell don't agree all the time with thier reviews but for the most part I find them very accurate and reliable. The only magazine I have some issue with is Game Informer, not because I don't agree with thier scores, but because the text and the score don't seem to match. Like a game that gets an 8.0 in GI gets shredded in the review text, while another that gets, say, an 8.75 gets praised to hell and back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gswift Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 There IS no "right" score, its all 100% subjective. Frankly, IGN and Gamespot are great, I sure as hell don't agree all the time with thier reviews but for the most part I find them very accurate and reliable. I don't have a problem with the low score, I'll judge for myself when I play it. Actually, based on the demo, I think the engine is 2nd-rate. I just want them to get the facts right. They (IGN) were 100% wrong on seveal FACTUAL points about the game, and that's 0% subjective. There are several errors that should be corrected. That kind of reporting makes me mad. Rushing a story about a new game to press, without proper editing is worse than rushing a game to the stores without proper debugging (well, no worse, at the very least). They were just trying to be the first to print something and didn't care if it was right. If they want my respect, then they need to be accurate. They may be correct about the score, but with the errors in the content, I don't trust the evaluation. Would you trust the critique of a movie critic if he didn't describe the plot of the movie correctly? Personally, I'm more of a strategy fan than a Star Wars fan. From what I've seen, it reminds me of Axis and Allies or Risk on steroids, and those games were great strategy games. It doesn't have to be complicated or fancy to be good. How many units are there in chess, ...or checkers? :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bossz Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 What facts the IGN reviewer got wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solid Snake Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 to hell with IGN and whoever else gives EAW less than an 8.0-9.0. thats so *snip. they need to review the GAME ITSELF NOT THE DAMN DEMO. i think IGN needs to review the game again and not be so retarded about it Yeah, we didn't really need that. -LIAYD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Servo Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 I got pc gamer today and it got 79%, basically they said ground battles are boring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shadowsfm Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 ign said that the graphics are crap, but we can see in the video and pics that he didnt put the graphics all that high. he said there wheren't enough units so there wasn't enough devercity, wich is a lie. he said you loose devercity in stratagy because all ships are like paper sissers rock, forcing you to have a well rounded fleet. he said all planet maps are nearly the same, because there wasnt many open maps, and most are like fighting in a hall way, which loose devercity in stratagy. which i hope is a lie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyreal Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 There is also a review that gives empire at war 4/5 stars. you can find it over at yahoo games http://videogames.yahoo.com/gamereview?cid=1991695101&tab=reviews&page=0&eid=-1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bossz Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 ign said that the graphics are crap, but we can see in the video and pics that he didnt put the graphics all that high. he said there wheren't enough units so there wasn't enough devercity, wich is a lie. he said you loose devercity in stratagy because all ships are like paper sissers rock, forcing you to have a well rounded fleet. he said all planet maps are nearly the same, because there wasnt many open maps, and most are like fighting in a hall way, which loose devercity in stratagy. which i hope is a lie. 1. Ground battle graphics aren't revolutionary, they are right on that. 2. Again they are right. The unit amount is very small compared to any other RTS. 3. True again. 4. All the screenshots show that the maps are quite small. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gswift Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 What facts the IGN reviewer got wrong? I'm just going to list what IGN said, and I'll leave it to you to figure out what's wrong with it: Veers' hero bonus is spawning infantry. Land buildings don't produce units One AT-ST unit is actually four individual walkers that fight and move as one Capital ships spawn fighters (the Reb's don't, but the Emp's do so this is only incomplete info, not wrong) Buildings: Few play a big roll in the game (a matter of opinion, but the buildings that give upgrades and the ones that spawn units seem to have a major impact in my opinion, and that accounts for most of the buildings. Also, even the mines play a part in land battles because if you destroy one, it's lost in galactic mode as well.) Graphics on the ground aren't all that hot. (I think cinematic mode looks great and the non-cinematic mode looks great when you have it at a normal zoom level. I don't play RTS games from ground level point of view.) I hope that's enough to answer your question. If you don't see what's wrong about those statements, then I can expand later, or perhaps I'M wrong. It happened once... :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zalcron Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 i am very sceptial of any games magazines , they are all on backhanders, look at what they gave Black and white 1 and the movies 94 and 97% !!! utter bollocks..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
=WildFire= Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 Depending on the mind some of the reveiws over at ign.com seems to be very forgiving or very harsh, they seem to be more interested in judgeing the companies performance then its games. How can i say that?, do me a favor and look at the writer of EaW at IGN.com think of any past reveiws hes made, and i know this guy well. This guy isnt a huge star wars fan which is NOT a problem but he has put down games for beings star wars oriented,(he'll give them credit for using the EU matariel but then says there isnt enough unit types, EaW wasnt ment to be a Age of empires grand space opera so yeah, the unitselection wont have that huge vareity) and judging from the comments he made he didnt put much effort into it. He made a comment about the graphics being sub bar when alot of computers having trouble running it. Now as far as they look, i guess that up to opinuon again but yeah, judging from the pics and vids he's displaying he is not doing it at highest settings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikemil828 Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 Gamespot give Empire at War an 8.7 http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/starwarsrts/review.html?sid=6144457 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 I usually trust Gamespot more then IGN. IGN tends to give incredibly high scores to games that don't deserve it and incredibly low scores to those that do. The only good thing to do is to read many review sites/magazines and compare them. More then everything, keep in mind that it's only someone's opinion, though when it comes to reviewing, objectivity is required, but you can only expect them to be subjective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander Obi-Wan Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 The only good review is your review. XP Yea, i usually trust Gamespot over IGN. They're reviews are usually decent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 Please guys, read the full thread before posting about a new review. It might have been posted before. -LIAYD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gstommylee Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 Sorry about that lukeiamyourday, yea as i expect gamespot would give it a better score than ign.com. They are less baised when it comes to reviewing games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Servo Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 Gamespot gives this a 8.7, nice read! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.