Ad blocker detected: Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker on our website.
Not for that time-frame. They were handing out 80-90's for most anything that had advertising in their magazine or for some other reason unrelated to the game. It's good to see that change as of late, and MOO3 got the rating it deserved, I think.
Care to back that up? Looking back upon my old issues, I don't see that. Hell if anything it was overall a low rating year.
Ignorance is bliss, eh?
While saying it's great is a big exaggeration, it wasn't half-bad. JA2 wasn't all peachy keen itself.
Not for that time-frame. They were handing out 80-90's for most anything that had advertising in their magazine or for some other reason unrelated to the game. It's good to see that change as of late, and MOO3 got the rating it deserved, I think.
Care to back that up? Looking back upon my old issues, I don't see that. Hell if anything it was overall a low rating year.
They were (and probably are still to a point, like any major publication) pretty notorious for being influenced to pander around, but it has lessened quite a bit recently. They have a really flakey review system, including giving a game bad marks for no multiplayer, but not take much off if the SP part sucks. It would be pretty hard to miss things like that, but you're the one who said that FOT was a "squad-based RTS".
While saying it's great is a big exaggeration, it wasn't half-bad. JA2 wasn't all peachy keen itself.
JA2 was certainly put together MUCH better than FOT, and came out years before. Of course, you would also have to try and ignore the massive imbalanced of both SP and MP parts of FOT, especially MP to the point where special rulesets have to be made in order for any sense of fun and balance to be achieved.
Obsidian:
Now working on Fallout: New Undermountain!
They promise to spend only a year on this title - only a year less than the original Descent to Undermountain!
stop arguing about the quality of gameplay in FOT (which wasn't really half bad), it's pointless. the lack of consistency and story is all the problem.
PC Gamer handed out mid-90s to both Baldur's Gates long before FOT showed up, so they were clueless then. They also gave the reprehensible Neverwinter Nights a 96% (I think), so they're clueless now. They're probably bothered more by the fact that it's console exclusive than by the fact that it'll be shit.
No Fallout Tactics wasnt the worst game I could think of when it came to squad based gameplay, thye squad-work in say... Dikatana was far worse(still not really a fair comparison but whatever.) Ill also agree that NEverwinter Nights had a crappy plot and the graphics werent that great but to me the real focus is on the editors which are a great set of tools all things considered. I also have to say that I liked Baldur's Gate, if only because it was the first RPG I ever played (Fallout was the second) and Im partial to it. That said Id say its nice to see a major publication putting down F:BOS in even a slight way because the more bitching there is the less likely the game will see shelves.
Zetura Dracos wrote:Ill also agree that NEverwinter Nights had a crappy plot and the graphics werent that great but to me the real focus is on the editors which are a great set of tools all things considered. I also have to say that I liked Baldur's Gate, if only because it was the first RPG I ever played (Fallout was the second) and Im partial to it.
Tekkaman_Blade wrote:Care to back that up? Looking back upon my old issues, I don't see that. Hell if anything it was overall a low rating year.
PC Gamer is notorious for giving good reviews to games that take out more ad space. There was a lovely article on AVault which took a year's worth of PC Gamer and compared review scores with ad space. The result was a lower tiered triangle pattern, indicating that while it was possible to get a good review with little to no advertising, no game with a lot of advertising got a bad review.
While saying it's great is a big exaggeration, it wasn't half-bad. JA2 wasn't all peachy keen itself.
It wasn't half-good, either. All the bugs in the title alone would keep it from being half-good.
i never got anywhere in torment
wish it was turn based
i did play through JA2 a couple times though... great game
need a JA3 almost as much as FO3
i think the company that made it went under though
I've been subscribed to PCGamer for about 7 years... wow
I never really noticed a pattern of them giving games they advertise good reviews. But I've only really paid attention to about 2% of games they review since my gaming taste isn't very broad.
Zetura Dracos wrote:I also have to say that I liked Baldur's Gate, if only because it was the first RPG I ever played (Fallout was the second) and Im partial to it.
I had the exact opposite experience with BG. I played a few weeks after playing Arcanum eight to ten hours a day for two weeks (to account for burnout.) I was underwhelmed to say the least.
I also played BG after FO. Never finished it because it was incredibly boring. The sad thing is that most people I know think that Infinity Engine fantasy games are great, while in fact they are awful compared to Fallout.
I bought Baldur's Gate expecting it to be similar to Fallout as well. I was fairly horrified by how limited and scaled back the design of Baldur's Gate was compared to Fallout. Just the fact that any quest you took in BG means that something has to be murdered by the player's party was enough to turn me off on the mechanics. Fallout was so, so much more than Baldur's Gate.
