Col Deadmarsh Posted December 13, 2000 Share Posted December 13, 2000 I guess Atomic didn't have enough money to pay off all the reviewers this time because CC5 was panned in one of the top computer game magazines, PC Gamer. It's about time they came out and told the truth. Only thing is, they left out so many of the other things that are wrong with it. Oh well, maybe that'll be in the next issue... Now explain to me again why CC3 and CC4 are so much better... ------------------ Youth is wasted on the young. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
russellmz Posted December 13, 2000 Share Posted December 13, 2000 i just got cc4 from my friend for an early b-day present. i am wondering whether to put it on my comp...=) ------------------ russellmz, Self-Proclaimed Keeper for Life of the Sacred Unofficial FAQ. "They had their chance- they have not lead!" - GW Bush "They had mechanical pencils- they have not...lead?" - Jon Stewart on The Daily Show Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MantaRay Posted December 13, 2000 Share Posted December 13, 2000 Well I dont think that the accusation that PC Gamer writers take money to give a favorable review is very nice. Might even border on slander. Besides they gave CMBO a good rating. Did BTS pay them off too? As for why was CC3 and 4 fun? Well CC3 was fun for me. I liked the campaign system and got attached to my squads. I liked renaming them and seeing if they could make it through the entire campaign. Plus the artillery modeling was kind of cool for the time it was made (and second only to CM still) Plus it was the Eastern Front. Is it a great game? Well no, but not bad to pass some down time by with. CC4 was just weird to me. Played the demo, just wasnt interested. CC5 havent even looked at it. CM is worlds better I am sure. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Colonel_Deadmarsh: I guess Atomic didn't have enough money to pay off all the reviewers this time because CC5 was panned in one of the top computer game magazines, PC Gamer. It's about time they came out and told the truth. Only thing is, they left out so many of the other things that are wrong with it. Oh well, maybe that'll be in the next issue... Now explain to me again why CC3 and CC4 are so much better... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> ------------------ When asked, "How many moves do you see ahead?", CAPABLANCA replied: "One move - the best one." New CM Site. In process of switching. Brought to you by Hardcore Gamers Daily The Red Army of the Rugged Defense Group Ladder [This message has been edited by MantaRay (edited 12-13-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Col Deadmarsh Posted December 13, 2000 Author Share Posted December 13, 2000 Manta Ray said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Well I dont think that the accusation that PC Gamer writers take money to give a favorable review is very nice. Might even border on slander. Besides they gave CMBO a good rating. Did BTS pay them off too?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That was hyperbole Ray. I'm sure none of these companies pay off magazine reviewers for favorable reviews...although who can be sure. What I said about the CC series has nothing to do with CM so it's preposterous for you to say what you did. The reason I said what I did was because I think a lot of these times, the reviewers haven't spent a lot of time with the previous versions of the game. Case in point...the PC Gamer reviewer who wrote about CC3. It seems to me, when they talk about the changes, it appears they are copying something off the press notes. ------------------ Youth is wasted on the young. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Aitken Posted December 13, 2000 Share Posted December 13, 2000 Colonel_Deadmarsh wrote: > What I said about the CC series has nothing to do with CM so it's preposterous for you to say what you did. People seem to like slinging the term "preposterous" around whenever someone says something they don't like. What MantaRay said was perfectly relevant. David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skott Karlsson Posted December 13, 2000 Share Posted December 13, 2000 I read PC Gamer and I dont believe that any writer there or editorial staff takes any kind of payment. Sure they get a free copy of the game perhaps to review but I've seen them be quite frnk about a bad game. Equally I've seen them praise well deserved good games. The biggest problem the reviewers do have is the amount of time they have to play and test a game and then write up their review. I do sometimes wonder if they get sufficient time to truly dwelve into a game or not. But I would say they get it mostly right most of the time. I subscribe to and read three pc game magazines, PC Gamer, Computer Gaming World, and Strategy Plus (Old Name). I won't buy a computer game unless all three of these mags give it a thumbs up first. Most PC games range between $39.99 - $54.00, the average about $45.00, and I dont want to waste my hard earned money on a crappy game. It was through these mags that I learned of CM and where I could lay my hands on it. So for my money these three mags are the ones I find best to give me the most honest information on a game. Thats how I determine wether a game is worth buying or not. Not flashy marketing packaging or hype. Just my two cents worth.. ~Skott~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Private Pike Posted December 13, 2000 Share Posted December 13, 2000 In terms of reviews what can be of concern (and this isn't aimed at any particular title) is the pressure games companies can bring to bear in terms of with-holding use of screen shots, previews and general information and all the other freebies like trips and "entertainment" from journalists who give bad reviews. This is perhaps more previlant in the music and film industry were journalist who give bad write-ups never get access to the "stars". It can become a form of self sensorship. In the light of this it's nice to see a major title get a slating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spook Posted December 13, 2000 Share Posted December 13, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Skott Karlsson: I subscribe to and read three pc game magazines, PC Gamer, Computer Gaming World, and Strategy Plus (Old Name). I won't buy a computer game unless all three of these mags give it a thumbs up first. Most PC games range between $39.99 - $54.00, the average about $45.00, and I dont want to waste my hard earned money on a crappy game. It was through these mags that I learned of CM and where I could lay my hands on it. So for my money these three mags are the ones I find best to give me the most honest information on a game. Thats how I determine wether a game is worth buying or not. Not flashy marketing packaging or hype. Just my two cents worth.. ~Skott~<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That's a reasonable plan, Skott, and it helps make sure that the "game quality" bases are covered. But from my own view, when it comes specifically to "historical wargame" reviews, I don't bother with print magazines. The best wargame reviewers are the ones who post their reviews at the "online" mags. I consider Bruce Geryk, Tim Chown, Alan Dunkin, Scott Udell, Bob Mayer, Andrew Bub, and a few others to be higher-caliber than even PC Gamer's Bill Trotter. And their wargame reviews usually preclude those of a print mag by 1-2 months. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tris Posted December 13, 2000 Share Posted December 13, 2000 Better still, cultivate a coterie of fellow wargamers who you know to be of the sober variety, people you understand in terms of their playing points of view, then rely on their consensus review of the product in question. Hell, these nice people needn't even know you're doing this "to" them, little guinea pigs that they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scooleen Posted December 13, 2000 Share Posted December 13, 2000 I have played all of the cc games, all improved on the previous version, except 5. The game was simply toooo easy, especially Normandy, there wasnt enough action at all. Oh well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Col Deadmarsh Posted December 13, 2000 Author Share Posted December 13, 2000 David wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>People seem to like slinging the term "preposterous" around whenever someone says something they don't like. What MantaRay said was perfectly relevant.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Isn't it funny Dave how you always chime in when I write something YOU don't like. Why don't you do us all a favor from now on and practice what you preach. ------------------ Youth is wasted on the young. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hiram Sedai Posted December 13, 2000 Share Posted December 13, 2000 Hi, mom. ------------------ Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction. - Blaise Pascal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
russellmz Posted December 13, 2000 Share Posted December 13, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hiram Sedai: Hi, mom. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> lol! good in-joke... ------------------ russellmz, Self-Proclaimed Keeper for Life of the Sacred Unofficial FAQ. "They had their chance- they have not lead!" - GW Bush "They had mechanical pencils- they have not...lead?" - Jon Stewart on The Daily Show Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Bates Posted December 13, 2000 Share Posted December 13, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Colonel_Deadmarsh wrote: > What I said about the CC series has nothing to do with CM so it's preposterous for you to say what you did. People seem to like slinging the term "preposterous" around whenever someone says something they don't like. What MantaRay said was perfectly relevant. David<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That's just preposterous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Aitken Posted December 13, 2000 Share Posted December 13, 2000 Colonel_Deadmarsh wrote: > Isn't it funny Dave how you always chime in when I write something YOU don't like. Why don't you do us all a favor from now on and practice what you preach. The only way I could "always chime in" when you write something I don't like, is if I were to trawl the board for your posts, something which – you may be upset to hear – I do not regard as a good way to spend my time. When I do pass comment, I make an effort to state my thoughts clearly and concisely, instead of just slinging a retort which sounds clever but is otherwise meaningless and irrelevant. David ------------------ Also I would just like to say to David that your as thick headed as a pull of stout. – jshandorf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pak40 Posted December 13, 2000 Share Posted December 13, 2000 The sad thing is that CC5 is probably better than CC3 & CC4 because it is more infantry oriented had has better campain options. The real thing that killed CC3,4 & 5 is that they didn't bother to make the TacAI better. It's basically the same as in CC2. Once anyone learned to defeat the CC2 AI all the rest of the games are easily mastered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Mayer Posted December 14, 2000 Share Posted December 14, 2000 I really wish someone would send me some of those perks we're supposed to get to review games. Been writing for game mags for about six years now, the last three and a half as a staffer, and I've yet to get any good bribes, damn it! From my experience, we generally don't jump through hoops for much, though for big name previews we will inconvenience ourselves and make, um, inconvenient trips (and believe me, most of the trips are inconvenient as hell, and as we're on the East Coast, flying to California or Washington coach sucks royally). We've been known to buy games to review them when companies don't send us copies (usually an indication something is wrong!). Mostly, though, poorly done reviews are a measure of our incompetence, not our mendacity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts