Grrrr . . . . how annoying, I thought the previous Gothics had those.
They did...which is why this doesn't make sense to me.
Have the standards become stricter recently?
Grrrr . . . . how annoying, I thought the previous Gothics had those.
They did...which is why this doesn't make sense to me.
Have the standards become stricter recently?
What? PC Gamer, the biggest PC only gaming magazine, completely thrashed it (only a bit unfairly) for being a badly performing buggy pile of a game released way too early. Don't get me wrong, I loved G3 w/ CP1.7 but when it was released that review, which was the only one I saw, was only a bit worse than the game deserved.
I read a few (non-gaming) magazines here, just the normal newspapers and it got good reviews in all of them. I bet they spent like 30-mins with it and they liked the graphics, then its automaticaly a 4/5 heh.
Fallout 3 is a good example, because it's an extreme crashfest on PC - at least according to MANY users posting on technical forums. It certainly crashed a ton while I was playing it, and for some reason it goes unnoticed by major reviewers.
Personally I never had a crash with FO3 ... even when playing the whole thing again to do the DLC's.
Ordinary newspaper reviews are useless.
Yes, I agree. But this is taking it a step further - and they have the console audience to consider now.
Natural progression, I'm afraid.