I Was Ripped OFF!

[PrinzMegaherz]

Originally posted by The Panther:
That is so true. I would totally refuse to load a game for free through piracy no matter the circumstances. The people who make these fine games deserve pay for their work.

Not every game is fine. It is actually very hard to discern whether a game is good or not before you have actually played the original.

Why?
1) There are certain game magazines which(not to say most) sell their honesty for exclusive demos or a bag of money

2) Demo games, as already said below, have a tendency to hold more content than the rest of the game. Those of you who remember Quake 1 will surely agree that the first episode you got for free had more content then the other ones afterward. It even had it's own boss, while the other episodes except the Last one had none. I was very disappointed after I bought the game. Same thing with diablo 1 and the butcher / undead king (can't remember the name). 2 unique bosses in the demo levels, no more after that till you meet diablo.

[ August 04, 2004, 01:28: Message edited by: PrinzMegaherz ]

[The Panther]

Originally posted by PrinzMegaherz:
There are certain game magazines which(not to say most) sell their honesty for exclusive demos or a bag of money

Well, that is why I Subscribe to CGW and no other pretender. I have never seen an instance of a review being slanted in CGW in over 5 years. Oh, reviewers are slanted, but I am pretty good with knowing this and taking it into account. I suppose this comes from about 10 years of uninterrupted subscription of CGW.

I trust Bruce Geryk as the main man for strategy reviews at CGW. If he says a game is good, then it is. Of course, he and I have the same taste in games, as I well know from long experience. But still...

In fact, when Bruce said all strategy gamers needed to go and buy Dom 2 at once, I obeyed his orders immediately. Good thing too.

I have made the mistake of buying games on a whim that sounded good (so and so gave it five stars!!!) only to find it a lousy game and then CGW subsequently gave it 2 stars or less in a review. I have truly learned my lesson on this.

[Arryn]

Originally posted by The Panther:
I trust Bruce Geryk as the main man for strategy reviews at CGW.

Tom Chick would probably dispute that.

[Atrocities]

The review I read in PC Gamer said the game was a lot of fun and highly addictive.

[Arryn]

Originally posted by Atrocities:
The review I read in PC Gamer said the game was a lot of fun and highly addictive.

I'm amazed that PC Gamer actually had anything good to say about a strategy game, especially one lacking state-of-the-art graphics. PC Gamer is noted for catering to the twitch crowd. Have they had a change in editorial leadership recently?

[Schmoe]

I would just like to chime in and say that the demo worked on me. It gave me just enough to learn what the game was about and get involved with some games. By the time I was able to max out all paths of research within the 40 turn limit, I was hungry for more.

I don't see anything wrong with a turn limit. The limit allows you to get involved in a game, but not to finish it - perfect for enticing sales. Neither do I see anything wrong with the research cap. It gives you a taste of what the magic system has to offer, while keeping tantalizing morsels just out of reach. Again, perfect for enticing sales.

Of course, it was frustrating when the AI cast Burden of Time and you couldn't Dispel it, because Dispel is a level 5 spell!

[ August 04, 2004, 04:03: Message edited by: Schmoe ]

[Norfleet]

Originally posted by The Panther:
I have made the mistake of buying games on a whim that sounded good (so and so gave it five stars!!!) only to find it a lousy game and then CGW subsequently gave it 2 stars or less in a review. I have truly learned my lesson on this.

I pay absolutely no attention to a review if it says the game is good. Reviews that like that are utterly worthless, especially when coupled with a rating system that is as utterly vague as "stars". Real benchmarking is done by setting something as a reference point, then rating everything relative to that. There is no "maximum score". Such a concept is absurd, as it would imply that the game would, by definition, have to be perfect, which can't happen.

But mostly, if you see a review of a game, that says the game is good, ignore it. Only listen to reviews that are bad. People who give bad reviews are those unafraid to criticize, which is what you want out of a review. A reviewer who can't do anything but drool isn't telling you anything you didn't already suspect: Why would you even bother reading it if you weren't thinking of getting it in the first place?

No news can be good news, but good news is no news.

[ August 04, 2004, 04:41: Message edited by: Norfleet ]