PC Gamer 49%?

Originally Posted by Gorath
PC Gamer´s official page doesn´t list a G3 review in their Dec issue though.

I have the Dec issue of PC Gamer (US) and it doesn't contain a G3 review; the next issue, #156, whether 'january' or 'holiday' I can't say, should have the NWN2 review. Frankly I find it hard to believe they'd already have a G3 review out, and wouldn't they give the assignment to Desslock, their RPG guy ? I know he's a Gothic fan and such a low score I'd say would be very surprising, even considering the bugs and balance problems.

I can't find it either. Must be a misquote.

Probably PC Gamer UK.

Nope, as Alistair already mentioned, PC Gamer UK gives it 71% (+15 if it gets patched).

It is a top issue - good preview of Supreme commander, reviews NWN2, Gothic 3, DoW: dark crusade

They mention some bugs in NWN2 but say they don't detract in any way (seem to be quest based bugs where you'll get the same quest several times etc.)

Previous issue reviews Dark Messiah and gives it something like 86%, contrasting strongly with Gamespots 65%.

Originally Posted by kalniel
They mention some bugs in NWN2 but say they don't detract in any way (seem to be quest based bugs where you'll get the same quest several times etc.)

Previous issue reviews Dark Messiah and gives it something like 86%, contrasting strongly with Gamespots 65%.

This is the problem I have with print magazines attempting to be 'first on the scene' … they cannot possibly get the same game we do, so they take 'near gold' code an evaluate it.

For example, NWN gets a release-day patch, *no* reviews can be taking that into account.

As for Dark Messiah … think about it. The game 'went gold' on Oct 9th, and you're saying that the *previous* edition had a *review*!?!? That is *not* a review! It is a pre-gold graded beta eval.

Argh …

Agreed,

Thats why I haven't squandered my money on any, for at-least 5-6 years now…
The same goes for 90% of online reviews I'am afraid…
(Pro reviews I mean, I have to exclude a Lot of Fan/volunteer sites from this)

Mostly the ones I have read for the past several years seem to most often
than not: miss the point, misrepresent the strengths and weaknesses,
(BTW: Who the hell promoted DMoMM as an Action-RPG ?! I can't figure out
why they seem to review it based on that assumption !)
display a profound ignorance of key features or focus on trivialities and the
glossy exterior of a game.

They, most often than not, seem to indicate a disturbing Laziness from the
reviewer which rarely seems to bother to scratch anything but the surface
of the game,or at least whatever he was able to gather in a few initial hours
of casual gaming. I can't count how many times I see copy pasted PR or
early/erroneous info be counted as fact by the "honest" reviewer were
a few hours of playing would be enough to reveal the opposite.

I mostly take my reviews from volunteer sites that I follow, and there mostly
from gamers that express themselves coherently and their general opinions
seem to have a continuity. Gauging if they are able to express an objective
opinion and if their tastes go in the general direction as mine from their
overall stance in each forum also helps.

I would have missed on an awfull lot of my recent years favorites I'm afraid
otherwise (The Gothics,Arx Fatalis, Vtm, ToEE, The spellforces etc)….

So what do you suggest they do? Wait for the game to appear on the shelves, go buy a copy. Give a reviewer 2 weeks to play and review it. Give it another few days for editing. Wait for the rest of the magazine content to be finalised, send off to publishers. Wait a week for preview copies to be authorised etc. Send out first copies to subscribers, send out rest of copies to retailers for stocking on shelves another 2-4 weeks later.

Finally we get the review in the shops up to two months after we've been able to buy the game for ourselves. As a result, people start not buying the game because they don't know enough about it, so they wait two months as well. Then game publishers start delaying the game release two months after completion because retailers won't take as many games until the print reviews are out so that people will actually buy them. But now the game isn't on the shelf the games magazine can't buy a copy for another 2 months, so they have to wait for the game to be released, go buy a copy, get two weeks to review… ad nauseum.

The only way out of that cycle is to give print magazines your best final effort prior to publishing so that they can get a review out as near to the time the game appears in the shops as possible. It works out best for both the magazine, the game publishers, and us. The only problem is when a game changes significantly between final gold and retail release. But in theory they shouldn't.

I for myself would be more inclined to give any credit to their reviews
if the content actually indicated that they used that "2 weeks prior to
release" Gold version to actually play the game and report their findings
responsibly.

Painfull experience has shown me that most just recycle the hype already
generated by the publishers… But I am repeating myself here…

From my past experience as a reviewer in a major czech online magazine I must say that MANY reviews in printed "zines" are bribed (unfortunately). However i would not automatically assume that they gave gothic 3 such a score because they did not receive their "payment" . The review was based on a really bad gold released by PB. As a major fan of the gothic series i must only lament PB for having such a lame publisher as JOWOOD is. The publisher is money-less and had to launch the game so it would not go broke. In the past we have seen a really bad piece of work from them. Just look at gothic2 being published in the us 8 months (or maybe even longer) after the release in germany, just because JW did not have money for the translation into english.

Originally Posted by kalniel
So what do you suggest they do?

Actually, what CGW is doing now isn't bad - they have an online component that does 'instant' reviews (i.e. based on 'real' review copies sent ~1-2 weeks before 'street' date), and then the magazine writes a small 'common sense view' based on their own review and those of other major sites.

Kalniel: no … you can write a really good review based on a few days of playtime - lets say 4 if you give it your maximum than you can write a review in 5 days after receiving the game and a quality one that is. But look at the lazy reviewers they give the game a 5-hour playtime and normally write a review after that many times based on console cheats playing on easy difficulty. I mean .. how long its been since you have last seen a reviewer saying things like "at the end of the game it turns out repetitive". Well .. in most reviews you dont. They just do not play the game enough.

I never read game magazines, nor do I bother about their reviews, for most of the reasons already listed!! Sites like this one are FAR more reliable, since the reviews are written by real gamers who are NOT being paid to re-write hype. If Mike writes a review over at Gamedad, I read and respect his opinion, because I know where he's coming from and I've lined up his previous reviews with my own opinion. I've seen other sites do the same thing with my reviews- (…game must be crap, Corwin liked it…)

I think print mags are anachronistic dinosaurs and haven't read one on years, although it is possible those available here in Australia don't represent the quality elsewhere.

As someone mentioned, I doubt this is the US PC Gamer because Desslock will write that review and he is a fan of the Gothic series.

So what do you suggest they do? Wait for the game to appear on the shelves, go buy a copy. Give a reviewer 2 weeks to play and review it. Give it another few days for editing. Wait for the rest of the magazine content to be finalised, send off to publishers. Wait a week for preview copies to be authorised etc. Send out first copies to subscribers, send out rest of copies to retailers for stocking on shelves another 2-4 weeks later.

Which just highlights why I think print mags are a poor medium for this industry - it just moves too fast and they can't possibly keep up.

Actually, what CGW is doing now isn't bad - they have an online component that does 'instant' reviews (i.e. based on 'real' review copies sent ~1-2 weeks before 'street' date), and then the magazine writes a small 'common sense view' based on their own review and those of other major sites.

I think I'd rather read their opinion than a collection of others but I noticed a post at Qt3 where Jeff Green says that format is now gone…

For those who care to know: I just got the new PC Gamer (US) and G3 isn't reviewed.

And you're surprised???

I have favorite reviewers. They seem to like the games I do. So I can pass on high rated games that "We"didn't like. Darwinia comes to mind. If the technical part is solid then a game is subjective and all reviewers biased. G3 came too close to Oblivion, and will always be compared. I like both. G3 is getting a good average score , extremes are discounted. Any reviewer that puts G3 in the same general category as Dungeon Lords loses credibility. Who believes that?

DL annoyed me, but at least it was playable. It's games like PoR2 which should garner total scorn!!

Originally Posted by Corwin
And you're surprised???

Me? No. Why?

Well, big American Gaming mags have a history of ignoring small European Developers who can't afford to pay for massive advertising!!

That's not always the case. PC Gamer named Gothic 2 RPG of the year over Morrowind back in 2002.