AGEOD Forums

"If you've read this far, there's a good chance that you have the patience and interest to appreciate the depth and accuracy of The Blue and the Gray. There's no denying that this is the most comprehensive and realistic simulations of the American Civil War that we've seen in a long, long time. But, as a consequence, it's also a remarkable impenetrable, laborious experiences, even by wargame standards. There are rewards to be found here, particularly with regard to creating your own command structure and mobilizing your economy and population to support the war effort, but they're fairly buried under an avalanche of statistics and uncooperative interface elements. Only the hardest of the hardcore need apply here."
Steve Butts

http://uk.pc.ign.com/articles/858/858840p1.html

This review is what you can expect from a mainstream review. However, I appreciate that the reviewer has actually played the game and made the effort to accept that some players can actually be looking for this kind of gameplay (unlike Amazon "reviews"). Some remarks are interesting and meet our own reflexions.


Interestingly enough is that several AACW players have given their own informed points of view. That's great! Do not hesitate to do so, I think they are much richer in informations for Joe Wargamer happening to read the review and having not heard about AACW before.

The score is a fucking joke. The game deserved a 6.2/10 exactly how? In the good old days games did not get a lower score just because they were hard. It would have been enough if he had given a warning that this is really difficult game. Everyone who reads this should head over and write a comment.

GlobalExplorer wrote:The score is a fucking joke. The game deserved a 6.2/10 exactly how? In the good old days games did not get a lower score just because they were hard. It would have been enough if he had given a warning that this is really difficult game. Everyone who reads this should head over and write a comment.

Without going into a discussion how the mainstream demographics have changed in the past 20 years I think that looking at the gaming market today 6.2 from a mainstream site not geared towards history geeks and grognards is a good guage for their target audience as to whether or not they might like this game. Obviously a site like Wargamer has a wholly different bias and scoring when it comes to reviews as they have a very different readership. Besides, I doubt that many wargame players look at IGN for suggestions for games in that genre.

Syt wrote:Besides, I doubt that many wargame players look at IGN for suggestions for games in that genre.

True, and for the reverse, casual gamers and those potentially interested by this genre but not really "wargame players" will certainly read more sites like IGN and here the score will have a real impact on how this type of game (and the company behind) has a serious chance to penetrate more the market instead existing only on a "niche".

Syt wrote:Besides, I doubt that many wargame players look at IGN for suggestions for games in that genre.

I even doubt that any serious gamer cares about internet/print magazines any more. In the years before 1995 I regularly bought magazines to get information about new games. This was when a gaming journalist could still afford to write his opinion. Now the last time I bought one must be years ago. I am just as disgusted by the online reviews. Every new game with enough hype gets a 10/10 nowadays. Ok I can live with that when I draw my consequences and will not buy them any more.

But what still irritates me is when they do this and then go about bashing the weak (the indy companies), just in order to be able to say "we also have reviews with low scores". The victims are usually the best games you can get (ACW, GalCiv, AoD). For example, I have seen examples where scores were lowered just because the game was turn based. Sometimes even with retarded comments like "this is an indy game - so the game is only turn based". Do they have a clue?

Conclusion? I only get my recommendations from other gamers, and I recommend my favourite games as much as I can, in the places where people know me.

PS: I read first about ACW on wargamer.com, and it was the wargamer review that made me purchase it.

AoD??
What game is this?? Being listed with AACW and GalCiv it must be worth a look...
Regards!

Age of Desire...

You were not old enough...

Personally, I have to agree that magazine reviews where something I paid close attention to 5 to 10 years ago (in fact I would pick one up and read it while iN the gaming store).

Now however it seems that there is a site reviewing games everywhere you look.

I find that while I may look at games that have a high review un a genre that I like, I read the reviews from people that have bought the game.

Whether good or bad it seems that I can get a feel for the game from reading reviews that people that have spent thier own money for and then playing the game for a while.

When reading about AACW I was leaning one way and then another because it was a toss up between Depth VS Info overload.

The one thing that did swing it in favor of going ahead and buying the game was that I saw a review from a guy that had written a review on 'Tin Soldiers...Alexander the great'.

I bought that game because of his review and he also wrote a pretty fair review on this game.

So I guess what I am trying to say is that if you really DO like a game then go ahead and write a review.

You never know who is reading them and has the same tastes you do (kind of like a movie reviewer that has the same tastes as you do...you are inclined to see what he recommends).

2 cents worth

arsan wrote:AoD??
What game is this?? Being listed with AACW and GalCiv it must be worth a look...
Regards!

Sorry .. it's a turn based RPG in development at iron tower studios. The company was founded by diehard Fallout fans who got fed up the current generation of RPGs:

http://www.irontowerstudio.com/

I included it in the list because it is a extremely promising indy title that got terrible previews just because the reviewer didnt like it being turnbased.