Ouch, this guy nailed it.
pulls Guest off the dead horse
Actually, I want to comment on this, despite how much has already been said about how awful this game is. I was reading through my GI today, and I found that THEY decided to give this game an 8 out of 10!!! The second opinion gave it a 7. both seemed to feel that fans of the series would love the game.
Isn’t this another fine example of just how AWFUL Game Informer is at doing reviews? Can anyone name a worse magazine for reviews? I would NEVER base a purchase on GI.
I should add that I don’t hate the mag though. The humor is juvenile (and generally just bad…but occasionally they get something funny in). But I love the retro gaming reviews and strategies (I don’t use strategies while I am playing a game, but it is nostalgiac to see them for a game I USED to play). The news is also pretty good, for the most part. I often read things in GI before anywhere else (I don’t scour websites for news…I like my news filtered a bit).
But those reviews…
I concur about GI. It’s a good magazine for screenshots, news, and previews, but the review scores are bizarre. Not only are some the ratings totally out of whack with everyone else, but their rating system is really strange–they have a 10 points scale but they score things like school assignments: 9/10=A, 8/10=B, etc., so for a game to get 5/10 from them means they thought it was absolute trash. Every once in a while someone will throw out a 2 for something they absolutely loathed, but basically that is how it works. So if I want to try to compare their scores to other sources, I subtract 5.
Also, what does Lisa do all day? She surely doesn’t keep busy reviewing games, because she never reviews any of the big releases for any platforms. It seems like she reviews two or three C titles a month, usually puzzle games or ports. “La Game Nikita” indeed. Ha!
I’m confused by the CGW score of 3/5.
Well, technically a 3/5 is 60%, which is not great. But the problem, as Slothrop suggests, is that we don’t know what these rating MEAN in many cases. The numbers are misleading. For CGM a 3/5 generally means it is an average game. Many will like it, but many won’t. It isn’t BAD, but it isn’t great either. That’s not what I would take a 60% to mean though, would you? That’s why I actually like a 100 point scale. I think it really tells you what is going on a bit better. And if you ARE going to use a 10 point scale, use it like most people use it. Say, it is a 7 out of 10, which usually means pretty good. But a 70% means something very different to most people.
It may just be connotation or even context, but it DOES make a difference. That’s why people should explain their scales (CGW does btw).
MOO3 is only a bad game when you discover the AI doesn’t work in a good number of situations.
I enjoyed the first four hours of play, before I discovered that the AI wasn’t just being wiley and unpredictable.
The design and feature set are cool. (I didn’t even mind the interface.) But bad AI’s a pretty critical flaw. :)
Not that the initial release was anything but deplorable, but there is some hope yet.
QSI has posted a pretty extensive list of what they are fixing.
And if you ARE going to use a 10 point scale, use it like most people use it. Say, it is a 7 out of 10, which usually means pretty good. But a 70% means something very different to most people.
Perhaps the usage is inspired by school report cards, in which anything below a 70 is bad, possibly failing. (At least that’s how it was where I went to school…)
I’d have to agree. I’ve enjoyed my time with the game up to the point I’m at now… but I can see everything becoming a real drag from here on out. If the AI gets patched, I’ll probably start 'er up again.
Yep, it’s the same for me.
Once I learned the game and understood everything then I really started to enjoy it. Unfortunately at that point all the AI problems start to show through and it really does sap all the enjoyment out of the game… If they can fix the enemy AI so it works properly then I have no doubts I’ll start playing it again.