Anyone have the full Gamespot review?

[Batavian]

I don't subscribe but I have copied the brief review below...

It's a satisfying re-creation of the struggle that defined the 20th century. But because it lacks a challenging AI, it eventually falls apart as anything other than a multiplayer game. - Tom Chick

The link for this review is:

http://gamespot.com/gamespot/stories/reviews/0,10867,2875157,00.html

They gave it a 7.2 out of 10. Players (total of 84) gave it a slightly higher 7.3 out of 10.

This is one reason why I have been asking so many questions about "human vs human" play.

[John DiFool]

I'd like to read it-but not for whatever silly

fee they are charging (for one review-I don't go

there anymore since they started that policy-

even for the free stuff).

John DiFool

[I/O Error]

I have the full review. For the most part they praise the same things we do and berate the same things we do.

"Strategic Command's level of detail strikes a perfect balance between getting bogged down in too much detail and glossing over important historical factors. In terms of complexity, Strategic Command is a notch or two above Hasbro's Axis & Allies board game and nowhere near the daunting challenge of Avalon Hill's intimidating Third Reich. Fans of SSI's Clash of Steel from 1993 will feel right at home."

"The game's graphics are clear and simple and the interface keeps everything at your fingertips."

" The hardships that the German army faced during winter in Russia are completely ignored. Instead, winter flies by in a few monthlong turns. Suddenly it's spring and no one is worse for the wear. For the most part, these concessions don't hurt the game so much as demonstrate the trade-offs that a wargame developer has to make in order to keep the gameplay simple. "

"Probably the biggest appeal of Strategic Command is playing out various historical twists and "what if" scenarios. In this regard, the game is a great success."

"Unless you can find a human opponent, Strategic Command is an interesting study in what the war would have been like if the enemy generals and politicians hadn't known what they were doing. "

You get the basic idea. It's not perfect, but then it's not INTENDED to be "perfect", like truly horrifying games like A3R and such strive for. They say far more good things than bad things.

[ November 18, 2002, 04:55 AM: Message edited by: I/O Error ]

[Batavian]

Thanks for the post i/o error.

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by John DiFool:

I'd like to read it-but not for whatever silly

fee they are charging (for one review-I don't go

there anymore since they started that policy-

even for the free stuff).

I agree, and I don't go there anymore either.

The Net can be many things, and there is always the issue of having to make enough $$ to survive, but they ought to re-consider this policy, especially for something as (relatively) insignificant as a game review.

If I were an executive in a place like that, I would offer game reviews for free, much in the way that grocery stores will have plenty of "loss leaders."

You may merely break even on some products, but those are necessary for "good will," and to attract new customers. (... I would imagine that this is part of the rationale behind game forums -- word of mouth will sell more games than any advertisements, no matter how clever or enticing)

Wargamer's site apparently makes it over the top (barely, they always say) by soliciting contributions. Others by using those annoying pop-up advertisements.

Gamespot is just not that good, IMO, to get away with premium service charges. You have to really offer something unique and in demand to do that.

[I/O Error]

I claim they're much better than IGN, however.