Mastiff Posted June 23, 2007 Share Posted June 23, 2007 Games For Windows "Verdict 4/10 + Historically detailed units & vehicles; realistic ballistics. - Unrealistic enemy AI.; no option to set way points or check line of site. All though that has been implemented into the new patch. Story by Matt Peckham" Not on there web site as of yet but they call it, The Theater of the AbsurdNew issue on page 77. [ June 23, 2007, 04:40 AM: Message edited by: Wolfseven ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sturmmann Posted June 23, 2007 Share Posted June 23, 2007 Doesnt shock me really. Most mainstream mags arent going to be positive review of a WWII RTS unless its a COH clone. The game has its flaws, but its far from "The Theater of the Absurd". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mastiff Posted June 23, 2007 Author Share Posted June 23, 2007 COH, I do play but a real Time Strategy game it is not, its a click fest build and mass assault fest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Task Posted June 23, 2007 Share Posted June 23, 2007 I agree. I don't expect much to come from the "Games for Windows" magazine. They already sold their souls to Vista. I have only seen one 10/10 review in that magazine for a realism simulation and that is IL-2 1946. The game in its current state is not 'absurd,' plus the patch will fix many issues, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlapHappy Posted June 23, 2007 Share Posted June 23, 2007 If a reviewer has legitimate points about criticizing TOW, that is one thing. But I'd take lightly anything coming from a shill website. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mastiff Posted June 23, 2007 Author Share Posted June 23, 2007 yes they did sell there soul. so to speak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewood Posted June 23, 2007 Share Posted June 23, 2007 While I like TOW for many if its features, its kind of funny the way reviews are received on this board. It seems when a review comes out from a mainstream reviewer that is negative, people on this forum state that they just don't get wargames. When someone like Jim Cobb has negative things to say, he's just a wargamer and doesn't get it. I understand that it is not the same people saying these things, but someone looking to get objective info on TOW may tend to think a reviewer can't please without a 10/10. That may tend to make them discount real good info that comes out on these boards as fanboy talk. I think we need to be fair to reviewers, especially if we haven't even read the review. Also, keep in mind that BFC's premise for TOW was to open realism based wargames up to more of the masses. That means mass focused reviewers as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sturmmann Posted June 23, 2007 Share Posted June 23, 2007 Im not saying the TOW doesnt have its flaws. I think the point Im comming from is that I sick and tired of reviews calling the game things like "The Theater of the Absurd". The game is not crap...far from it. You want crap go find a copy of Daikatana. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewood Posted June 23, 2007 Share Posted June 23, 2007 I think they have every right to call it that. I personnally don't think its crap, but a game that has been hyped up for over 5 years probably has some pretty high expectations preceding it in the reviewers mind. Especially coming from BFC. That is still my major gripe. In a vacuum, its a good game. But add in the long development time, the long "beta" in Russia, BFC's marketing, and expectations from the fact its from 1C and BFC, and you do get a lot more disappointment to go along with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfritch Posted June 23, 2007 Share Posted June 23, 2007 If the game itself isn't deserving of that title (and it is in its present state) the events subsequent to release, to this day, most definitely warrant the title, and that's coming from a guy who wanted to believe what was promised so badly he bought it, gave it away and bought it again based on the "end of the month [of May]" promise. Total absurdity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RabidRabbit Posted June 24, 2007 Share Posted June 24, 2007 Originally posted by Sturmmann: The game is not crap...far from it. I would never call the game crap. To me the game holds much promise. However, as of yet, it has not been fulfilled and in its current state is closer to crap than a gem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShiftZ Posted June 24, 2007 Share Posted June 24, 2007 Not so much Gem as Diamond in the ruff, that's how I'd put it. Playing this type of game on a 8' by 8' table is much better but most people are fat and lazy so sitting on your ass ans punching keybords is much eaiser but way wicked to program. ToW rocks...once those gents at 1C quit thier day jobs all will be well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KiloAlpha4 Posted June 24, 2007 Share Posted June 24, 2007 "To me the game holds much promise" it could hold oodles and zoodles of promise but promise isn't actually in the game and promise doesn't get good scores. What gets good scores is it actually being in the game not just a "promise" . This game is fun to a degree and I like it but please in all seriousness folks it is far from a finished product...It is a alpha stage game that looks as though they either ran out of time , money , the patience to make it as good as it could be, got in way way over their heads and beyond their abilities or all 4..and released unpolished, incomplete and with many bugs. Maybe in the future this will teach them something and they will learn from this but all in all I don't regret buying this game I will just be much more careful before I purchase the next installment. One thing the game shouldn't be doing is idling my cpu usage up to 99%...which is another problem ...improper or no adequate, if any, beta testing prior to release. [ June 24, 2007, 04:42 AM: Message edited by: KiloAlpha4 ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KiloAlpha4 Posted June 24, 2007 Share Posted June 24, 2007 and P.S. Heads-up. You are being redirected to a website outside of www.gamesforwindows.com that is no longer operated by Microsoft. Just thought you would like to know. let me see do I listen to microsoft about anything....nope Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mastiff Posted June 24, 2007 Author Share Posted June 24, 2007 Originally posted by KiloAlpha4: and P.S. Heads-up. You are being redirected to a website outside of www.gamesforwindows.com that is no longer operated by Microsoft. Just thought you would like to know. let me see do I listen to microsoft about anything....nope If you read the last page of the that issue Jeff Green admits the magazine is influenced by Micro$oft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RabidRabbit Posted June 24, 2007 Share Posted June 24, 2007 Originally posted by Wolfseven: Nevertheless, he more or less rips 'em a new one for their botched handling of Games for Windows Live. I would hate to see what he would have said if Microsoft was not pulling the strings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bruce90 Posted June 24, 2007 Share Posted June 24, 2007 Keep the faith.Battlefront won't let us down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dennis50 Posted June 24, 2007 Share Posted June 24, 2007 Originally posted by bruce90: Keep the faith.Battlefront won't let us down. I don't think they have the final say ..they can only suggest or request. This is not their game. Regards, gunz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie901 Posted June 25, 2007 Share Posted June 25, 2007 Originally posted by GunzAbeam: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by bruce90: Keep the faith.Battlefront won't let us down. I don't think they have the final say ..they can only suggest or request. This is not their game. Regards, gunz </font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfritch Posted June 25, 2007 Share Posted June 25, 2007 Originally posted by Charlie901: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by GunzAbeam: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by bruce90: Keep the faith.Battlefront won't let us down. I don't think they have the final say ..they can only suggest or request. This is not their game. Regards, gunz </font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlapHappy Posted June 25, 2007 Share Posted June 25, 2007 While I won't go on about it - Because I know it won't do any good - This patch is taking a considerably longer time than one could consider reasonable when you take into account many can't get the game to run at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sturmmann Posted June 25, 2007 Share Posted June 25, 2007 Not really...patches can take several months to finish. The last patch for Medieval 2 took a few months to see the light of day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts