PC Gamer Review

[Guest Capt. Molo]

78%

 

Highs: Tons of units; plays just like Age of Empires II; great Star Wars feel.

 

Lows: Graphically dated; not very original; feels more like a mod than a brand new game.

 

Bottom Line: Basically a Star Wars mod for Age of Empires II. That's pretty cool, though.

[GB_StormTrooper]

78%!!!!! Im dissapointed with them:mad:

[Guest Wanderer_Man]

Actually if you read the review its pretty lame overall, they give it a low score but they never really go into WHY it was so bad, etc why they felt it was a mod. I am disspointed in the company for putting out a such a review not just for this game but for any game, yea its one thing to not like it but its another to not really explain why that is.

 

Honestly the more I play this game the more I see different and interesting over AoK, I doubt the PC Gamer people really played it, if at all.

[Dvlos]

78% isnt all bad... I expect most reviewers to talk like this.. its us, the hard core Star Wars/AOE fans that will drive sales, and sales garners more attention than magazine reviews.

[GB_StormTrooper]

true but still........78%??

[Guest Maul403]

78 is bad, thats a C, for this game thats bad...but I guess we are a LITTLE biased hehehehehhehee

[Guest Bobio]

For PC Gamer, 78 is good. I'ld say less than 10 games get in the 90s yearly for PC Gamer

[Guest Thrawn]

Yeah, but it didn't even make the 80's! I think that the game was unfairly evaluated. Too bad there arent' more SW fans at PC Gamer. . .

[Guest Bobio]

Originally posted by Thrawn

Yeah, but it didn't even make the 80's! I think that the game was unfairly evaluated.

 

How so

[Darth_Rommel]

Jeez... you already have the newest PC gamer? ... The mail is so slow here!

 

Can you type up some of it?

[EndSub]

C'mon guys, 78% is good!

 

Not to burst your bubbles, but this game doesn't shine through on the origanality department.....while this is fine, AoE is an Awsome game, and Star Wars is a kick ass setting to put it in, but Reviewers are going to notice this and nock it down a few percentage.....unless, of course, there Die-Hard Star Wars fans

[Gungan_Reble]

I think you are right EndSub most Reviewers are going to look at the game and take this point of view but AoK sold by the ship load

and I think SW will too, it's us gamers who drive the sales of games up not the Reviewers thank God. I still think we are on to a winner hear.

[Guest Capt. Molo]

I would have to agree that 78% is a LITTLE low. I think it deserves something around an 82%. It should have made the 80s even though it is very similar to AOE2.

[Influenza]

What's 4% among friends?

 

EndSub is right...this game just isn't knock-down fabulous. That's what it takes to get into the 90's at PC gamer. A game can't *just* be fun and addicting... it has to be spectacular in nearly every way.

 

The game is, after all, little more than a mod for AoK. It's a damned impressive mod, but that's all it is ("mod" being defined as a new way of playing a game using that game as a foundation). Again, that's not necessarily a bad thing. Like the reviewer said... "That's pretty cool, though"

[chrisw_30]

78%.....come on..its at least worth 85% even with the engine

[Guest Capt. Molo]

well, the difference between 78% and 82% is a good game and GREAT game. GB is a GREAT game, not a good game.

[TheJackal_jk2]

To be honest with all of you guys. I think LEC should of used an other engine. The original ForceCommander engine (a mix of 2d and 3d.... not the final copy of the game) was looking very good. I guess they hit a road block with that engine.

 

Anyways, I guess it is because the game looked too much like AOE2 that it got a lower score. Here's what GB had the same as AOE2:

- buttons at main menu not moved around

- no "real" cut-scenes just diologue and a still image

- races didn't really get completly different units, so I consider them more like civs instead of races. I mean, sure they look different and have one uniq unit, but they are basicly the same.

 

 

I can't really think of more, maybe you can think of some?

[SimonW]

As people are finding out, it appears that there are hidden bonuses with the civs. If you ever played AoK, then you might know the bonuses with Rams vs. Trebuchets, and other units.

[Guest DarthMaulUK]

The one thing these magazines are forgetting is that SW fans have not had one decent RTS game to play.

 

Although I am a Rebellion/Supremacy veteran (and despite all the bugs) I loved it, nothing much has really come out.

 

Lucasarts spent last year launching some of the worst SW titles to grace a computer/console rather than focusing on launching decent games - like they seem to be doing now.

 

If the magazine took this into account when reviewing, I am sure they would give it 99%!!! :-)

 

BRING REBELLION II LUCASARTS!!

 

DMUK

http://www.galacticbattlegrounds.co.uk

[Paragon_Leon]

78 % is disappointing, yes, but it is consistent with the policy of PC Gamer. If they feel a game doesn't bring anything really new to a succesfull concept, it gets a mediocre score. For instance: Half Life: Blue Shift was basically Half Life from a different angle. Same engine, different tweaks. Still it got only about 70 % or something. Half Life ! Can you believe it ? The game PC Gamer hails as the best ever.

So 78 % probably even thanks a big portion of it's grade to the Star Wars-themes.