Another Soldiers of Anarchy review

Kreegle · Post by **Kreegle** » Fri Nov 15, 2002 2:56 pm

<strong>[ -> N/A]</strong>

<a href="http://pc.ign.com" target="_blank">IGN PC</a> have reviewed <a href="http://www.soldiers-of-anarchy.com/" target="_blank">Soldiers of Anarchy</a>, and given it a final score of 8.0. The juicy bit:<blockquote><em>This is one of those games I really want to recommend to everybody but I just can't bring myself to. I think that those people who can get past the pathfinding problems will have an amazing time playing this game and enjoying the thoughtful experience, I know I have. But that could be a pretty tall order for many RTS gamers who are used to immediate response. I know I got pretty annoyed on more than a few occasions. The lack of a pause and order feature makes this issue even more frustrating. It's really too bad they didn't spend more time polishing this up because it could have been one hell of a game.

</em></blockquote>Maybe that <a href="http://www.duckandcover.net/#1037349090">recently released patch</a> fixes a few of these problems? Oh well. Read the whole review <a href="http://pc.ign.com/articles/377/377310p1.html" target="_blank">here</a>. Spotted at <a href="http://www.evilavatar.com" target="_blank">Evil Avatar</a>.

Spazmo · Post by **Spazmo** » Fri Nov 15, 2002 7:44 pm

So they reviewer didn't really like the game and was somewhat disappointed and he still gave it a 8.0? What the hell?

Jeff · Post by **Jeff** » Fri Nov 15, 2002 8:18 pm

Spazmo wrote:So they reviewer didn't really like the game and was somewhat disappointed and he still gave it a 8.0? What the hell?

I think that those people who can get past the pathfinding problems will have an amazing time playing this game and enjoying the thoughtful experience, I know I have

Spazmo · Post by **Spazmo** » Sat Nov 16, 2002 4:10 am

The lack of a pause and order feature makes this issue even more frustrating. It's really too bad they didn't spend more time polishing this up because it could have been one hell of a game.

VasikkA · Post by **VasikkA** » Sat Nov 16, 2002 4:18 am

Spazmo wrote:The lack of a pause and order feature makes this issue even more frustrating. It's really too bad they didn't spend more time polishing this up because it could have been one hell of a game.

The reviewer talks about polishing up, which means it's not too bad, but could have done better. Also, he says it could have been one hell of a game and that doesn't mean it sucks. As far as I'm concerned, the 8.0 score matches with the review.

Doyle · Post by **Doyle** » Sat Nov 16, 2002 7:01 am

7 is about average on IGN, spazmo, so 8 is good, but not "one hell of a game".

Also, a reviewer shouldn't have to wait for a patch to review the game, Kreegle. That type of attitude is part of what's ruining games.

Spazmo · Post by **Spazmo** » Sat Nov 16, 2002 8:14 am

Yes, most publications tend to have a right-out-of-the-box reviewing policy, which is a good thing.

Mad Max RW · Post by **Mad Max RW** » Sun Nov 17, 2002 2:38 am

And others are bribed to wait for all the game crippling bugs to be fixed *coughAnarchyOnlinecough*

Spazmo · Post by **Spazmo** » Sun Nov 17, 2002 3:06 am

I still can't believe PC Gamer gave AO MMORPG of the year over Dark Age of Camelot...

Mad Max RW · Post by **Mad Max RW** » Sun Nov 17, 2002 12:31 pm

And I can't believe people still play those piece of shit MMORPGs.

Red · Post by **Red** » Sun Nov 17, 2002 7:08 pm

I think the only reason AO won over anything else is because it's the only MMORPG divergent from the fantasy setting. Well, the only significat one anyway.

Kreegle · Post by **Kreegle** » Mon Nov 18, 2002 8:26 am

Doyle wrote:Also, a reviewer shouldn't have to wait for a patch to review the game, Kreegle. That type of attitude is part of what's ruining games.

When did I say the reviewer should have waited?

And how does an attitude ruin games anyway?

What's going on?! 8O

Barfly · Post by **Barfly** » Mon Nov 18, 2002 8:32 am

It's a conspiracy, I tells ya!!
HEAD FOR THE HILLS!!
I don't know I think some people have their info munged.

Doyle · Post by **Doyle** » Mon Nov 18, 2002 11:52 am

Kreegle wrote:When did I say the reviewer should have waited?

And how does an attitude ruin games anyway?

What's going on?! 8O

Kreegle wrote:Maybe that recently released patch fixes a few of these problems? Oh well.

Maybe I inferred too much from that statement, but it does seem to indicate that you thought the reviewer is somehow at fault for not considering the patch in his review.

Kreegle · Post by **Kreegle** » Tue Nov 19, 2002 3:41 pm

I see. "Oh well" = bad reviewer, bad!

Not "shame this game didn't have the patch built in to begin with, because it would have received a better review"

Or "Does the patch fix this problems? I'm not sure... oh well"

That attitude of yours is part of what's ruining news posts!

Doyle · Post by **Doyle** » Tue Nov 19, 2002 10:44 pm

No, it's not my attitude, you just failed to adequately instill the proper meaning into your news post. You should feel ashamed Kreegle, because you have failed not only as a news poster but also as a human being. You can still qualify to be a monkey, though.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Wed Nov 20, 2002 1:28 pm

You're all a bunch of fags*. Also: has anyone bought this thing yet? I saw it in the store and was wondering whether I should pick it up.

*except for kreegle, of course, he's a man's man. In the good sense.

Jeff · Post by **Jeff** » Wed Nov 20, 2002 2:39 pm

uh oh brownnosers someone save me.

Kreegle · Post by **Kreegle** » Thu Nov 21, 2002 5:47 am

Adequately instill the proper meaning? Pffft, you need to lighten up!

And I'll save you, Lasse.

Valdis · Post by **Valdis** » Thu Nov 21, 2002 5:48 am