PDA

View Full Version : Review?



curtlegion
16th Mar 2003, 14:23
http://www.gamespy.com/reviews/march03/praetorianspc/

Do the these people play games.... Hard to tell.

Mike_B
16th Mar 2003, 16:57
Originally posted by curtlegion
http://www.gamespy.com/reviews/march03/praetorianspc/

Do the these people play games.... Hard to tell.

They do but they probably found the game to hard...

I must say that I've never payed much attention to reviews, Anyone should make up for their own or they like the game or not. It is off course understandable that the developpers/publishers are interested in what people think of the game, but I don't agree with many points in this review. Just to take one example, most people are whining about the graphics, well imo they are great. What many people probably forget is that, when the graphics would be even more detailed you wouldn't be able to fight with a massive army without slowing down.


A strategy game fan certainly wouldn't waste his or her money by purchasing this title. It's just disappointing that Praetorians is good enough to let players see where -- with a little more time, a little more tweaking and a few additions -- it could have been great.

I don't feel that I as - strategy fan - wasted my money on this game, not at all. The game is a good challenge, and it takes many re-loading, thinking of strategies before you can move on to the next mission. So I'm sure that I will be playing this game for a long while. /rant

p.s. watch this post for more critisism on the review

Cicero
16th Mar 2003, 18:04
My rating of Praetorians is 90%. I'm also reserving the extra 10% for the future Praetorians II.

As for the Praetorians game reviews from Gamespy and C and VG, I dont agree on many points.

I'm looking for a truly authoritative review about Praetorians that is objective, reasonable, unbiased and free from inconsistent points.

Let's post links to other reviews we find. We'll have our own assessment on these reviews, and maybe rate them too.

For Praetorians, I give a well-deserved 90%.

Random
17th Mar 2003, 01:18
Why didn't you post this in my reviews thread? I made that thread so we'd have a place with links to all the reviews, and we could discuss them all there. It doesn't really work if you create a new thread for every review that's posted on the internet....

Anyway, that Gamespy review is bad. Their negative points are this:

"High learning curve with clumsy interface."
I don't agree. It's quite easy to get into the game.

"Lack of control during combat."
I consider this a feature, not a flaw. It's realistic that once troops start engaging in battle, you can't control them.

"Slow gameplay."
This is just wrong. The game is probably the fastest RTS I've ever played.

"Mediocre graphics."
I don't know how the reviewer can claim this. The terrain graphics are brilliant, and while the unit animation might be a bit jerky, the reviewer doesn't realise that it would be impossible to have hundreds of units on screen at the same time otherwise. He has also failed to mention that the game has very low system requirements, so it's accessible to a lot more people.

I get the impression he didn't even play the game much, except for a couple of skirmishes. He doesn't mention what the campaign is about, how many missions there are, not even what civilisation you play. Pretty suspicious.

curtlegion
17th Mar 2003, 01:30
Sorry Random.... We could organize all of this when the new game site goes up. Curt.