PC Gamer UK Review

[Saracen]

Normally after the title, I would add a load of these: !!!!

 

Anyway, walking into work, I was gonna pick up the new copy of PC Gamer UK. It had Empire at War all over the covers, and it was screaming First UK review... I thought, well they must be impressed... I opened it up, looked at all the nice pictures and found the score at the end of the 3 page spread to be a measly 79%!!

 

I was like zOMG!! WTF!!! PC G4m3r5 5ux0r!!!11111eveleven!!

 

After my little fit at the fact that I wouldn't even give the demo 79% (Ok I gave it 82% but it was still only a demo ) I gave it a quick read over. Even started off a great or cool, and all seemed promising. I was beginning to wonder why they gave it this score... Then I realise that in order to review something that holds good, you praise it and make it sound great, then you throw it off a tall building.. before you summerise it and percentage it according to how well it survives the drop.

 

They loved the concept of the Galactic map.. were highly impressed by the Space battles... and then Ground battles... They obviously got so excited they exhausted themselves... This part they called plain, dull, uninspiring and boring.... Not all in the same sentence, but any context you could explain dull in, they put ground battles as being just that... They weren't too impressed by the multiplayer either. Enjoying it, but finding that not being able to build bases caused a downfall in the fun factor. This included a critical eye at what they say is a somewhat buggy multiplayer.

 

I don't know much more than that, I got rather fed up with reading it, and put it back in the rack. Even with the comments they made, I couldn't really see why they said it doesn't really work at all levels. The (censored) (censored) (censored) (censored) <<< did them myself..

 

They gave C&C: Renegade a 47% back in 2002, and now they're not entirely happy with this. I dunno whether or not they did their homework, because the only time Petroglyph was mentioned was in the stats section at the bottom which gave specs and stuff....

 

I'll reserve my own judgement until Friday and the weekend, and I'll write my own unbiased Review on the full game for Monday/Tuesday @ Empire-At-War.com. But the approach they took on the game just didn't seem to justify even the Demo, let alone the full game, that's what upsets me.

 

P.S. - I normally buy PC Gamer, and would have added scans to this post... But I wasn't prepared to pay the money unless the review was over 80-85%... OK I am biased, but I don't appriciate the best RTS developers receiving such a score. Maybe they are right, maybe they are wrong. I'd prefer them to be wrong, but we shall see eh guys?

[Cain]

Good post King

 

Yeah - I have noticed the same lame complaints in many other previews but I think this is only a matter of balance. If we buz Petroglyph with enough feedback they could fix all the "problems" in the first patch.

[Nevets]

Seems like a fair score.

 

Any of us will admit that the game isn't perfect, and we haven't even played it. I imagine once we do we will notice some more flaws. It should still be a really fun game and that seems to be what the reviews are saying, but it is lacking in some departments that would of made it a great game.

 

I expect most reviews to be from 75-85%.

[Saracen]

So long as all the feedback is constructive... my worry is that alot of this community who have problems with it, will flame it for all it has. All I can say is that it's Petroglyph's first game as a company. Alot of the guys haven't worked on an RTS to completion since Red Alert 2 & Yuri's revenge, so there is alot of modern ground to catch up on... My point is that if many people don't take this into consideration and don't address the game constructively in a hope to make it better, then we're not gonna go anywhere here.

 

All feedback will help shape the way Petroglyph's next RTS is developed... So people should keep that in mind. Help the guys, and don't put em down 

[Darthscharnhorst2]

So long as all the feedback is constructive... my worry is that alot of this community who have problems with it, will flame it for all it has. All I can say is that it's Petroglyph's first game as a company. Alot of the guys haven't worked on an RTS to completion since Red Alert 2 & Yuri's revenge, so there is alot of modern ground to catch up on... My point is that if many people don't take this into consideration and don't address the game constructively in a hope to make it better, then we're not gonna go anywhere here.

 

All feedback will help shape the way Petroglyph's next RTS is developed... So people should keep that in mind. Help the guys, and don't put em down 

 

No Flames from me, though a lot of my issues with the game most likely would have to be resolved in an expansion not a patch.  I think I am in line with the reviews coming in, EAW is one of those game that while good, could have been a whole bunch more.  Hopefully some constructive criticism will help decide which way they take a future game, possible expansion or maybe even a super patch.

[Foshjedi2004]

A Super Patch that adds in a few "hidden Easter Eggs"

 

Cough SSD Cough B-wing Cough TIE Interceptor Etc ;D

[Samheyn]

I just don't care about reviews... Rebellion got only 64% in my favourite game magazine when it was released... and yes, the space combat was just "ugly"... but after all I still play it sometimes when I am bored and want to play a solid SW game.

[Necro]

its funny when they say its boring (ground) which it is compared to space BUT uninspired?

 

does that make every other rts ever made inspired and boring?

[elderBombadil]

Frankly, I feel that Petro has gone down the same path that EA did with BFME. You had build plots and could not build anywere you wanted. Frankly BFME was a mess and just did not go over well. Now they are making BFME2 which is very much like CCZH and CCG. It plays much better, its a shame that petro decided to go the route of standered building areas. I still intend to play EAW and see how the multi player works. As of right now it just seems to be that petro was more interested in makeing a single player RTS.

[Darthscharnhorst2]

As of right now it just seems to be that petro was more interested in makeing a single player RTS.

 

Though a lot of single player fans are not pleased becuase of the apparent lack of depth to the Galatic Map.  Maybe its a case of trying to please everyone.

[Nevets]

Frankly, I feel that Petro has gone down the same path that EA did with BFME. You had build plots and could not build anywere you wanted. Frankly BFME was a mess and just did not go over well. Now they are making BFME2 which is very much like CCZH and CCG. It plays much better, its a shame that petro decided to go the route of standered building areas. I still intend to play EAW and see how the multi player works. As of right now it just seems to be that petro was more interested in makeing a single player RTS.

 

I differ, I think they made towards the multiplayer crowd. The automatic base building seems to have been made to make it easier and quicker, so in multiplayer things wont get too complicated and draw out games to long.

 

If they were gearing it towards singleplayer they would have added diplomacy and other depth creating features. Instead they kind of went simple and to the point so it would be easier to play online.

[Teradyn_pff]

I think that Nevets is correct on the focus of this game.  While many of us would love to have enough content and features to equal Rebellion in average game length, Petroglyph knows that this will be counter-productive in the larger scheme of things.

[Ishmael-PG]

If we were trying to just make a single-player RTS, the game would have been very, very different.  There's 3 ways alone to play a solo game, and only one of them is a story campaign. 

 

We've done some things differently in this game than any other strategy game, and change is sometimes hard to accept, simply because it's different.  No tactical base building feels very funky at first, but remember we're not trying to make the same game you've all played before! 

[Foshjedi2004]

Hello Ishmael.

 

Thanks for the Feedback.  I am sure that EAW will be better than any RTS we have seen to date.

[sp4mm]

P.S. - I normally buy PC Gamer, and would have added scans to this post... But I wasn't prepared to pay the money unless the review was over 80-85%...

 

And you call them unfair? Heh.

 

Reviews are subjective, and they have their reasons. In all honesty, given the lack of depth features in EaW, it sounds about right to me.

[WhiteSkull]

LOL it seems he knocked off a big chunk cause of base building, and i fully expect alot of reviews to do the same, because none of them can get a  un-biased review they are all tained by what they want and expect rather then rating games based on what they offer.

[Teradyn_pff]

One thing that they don't take into account is the ammount of maneuvering and planning that your opponent will be able to pull off while you are building your "perfect base" on each of your planets.

[Darthscharnhorst2]

One thing that they don't take into account is the ammount of maneuvering and planning that your opponent will be able to pull off while you are building your "perfect base" on each of your planets.

 

Yes but they could have allowed us to "build" a base while staying in the galatic mode. 

 

Examples:

1. Pick from a selection of prebuilt base options via diagram after conquering the planet. This would really only require more maps and the mechanic to choose the layout. Actually, they could have used the exact same map but altered defensive emplacements to the players preference.

 

2. Limit traditional base building to single player. *Player can zoom to tactical view to build, galatic map pauses.* 

 

3. Allow the player to place defensive structures on a planet while in the galatic map.  The player could pull up a top down "map" of the planets surface and place things like walls, buildings, gun emplacements but be limited with build points. This of course would not be in 3d and could have icons depicting structures. This could be done from the garrison screen *let us place where the garrison units would be as well*  I think this option would most likely be the harderst to code but really would have revolutionized the RTS genere.

[kingdark]

maybe in a year or year-and-a-half in an expansion...

[crazylegsmurphy]

http://www.mmmyeah.com/EAW/wish_list.jpg

[kingdark]

HOW do you do that????

[crazylegsmurphy]

You can't...as you can see I put "Not a screen cap" on there....that is my wish of how they would have made base building...from the Galactic map...you can place/arrange Icons.

 

Or at the very least I would like to see a choice of 2-5 placement choices...so the human enemy can't always tell where I am.

[Darthscharnhorst2]

You can't...as you can see I put "Not a screen cap" on there....that is my wish of how they would have made base building...from the Galactic map...you can place/arrange Icons.

 

Thats exactly how I pictured it as well!

[DarthMaulUK]

I have said it a dozen times before. Magazine reviews - especially in the UK and probably Europe can be 'bought' so I pay them no attention to them.

 

Having said all that, after reading PC Gamers preview the month before, I had a gut feeling that they wouldnt be giving EaW a score in the 80s. Empire at War is no Rome:Total War (95%), its certainly no Dawn Of War(91%) and if you buy PC ZONE (which is owned by the same company now, and they gave BFME 91% -noticed the double page advert, exclusive review and demo in that issue?) but EaW beats that hands down.

 

The way bases are pre-set is something PC Gamer didnt like with BFME and didnt like with EaW but I think overall the game deserves and 81-85% as you can just jump right in with easy to use controls, stunning graphics and thanks to the galactic map being real time, you are always kept on your guard and busy, recreating the fast pace of a Star Wars movie as the conflict builds ups.

 

I think the job done here is a good one and its up to us to educate the store workers as they will be the ones who can make or break the game.

 

DMUK

[Guest]

If I were my old narcissistic megalomaniac self I would take this oppurtunity to say "I told you so" in big bold capital letters with lots of exclamation points. But since I'm not anymore I will say this instead:

 

You have to remeber that PC gamer's rating scale is a bit differnt from what we expect. 79% is actually quite good for PC gamer's standards. A game in the 60%-65% range is considered "above average". Here is the scale from the site.

 

==================================================================

100% - 90%

EDITORS' CHOICE - We're battening down the hatches and limiting our coveted Editors' Choice award to games that score a 90% or higher. It's not easy to get here, and darn near impossible to get near 100%. Games in this range come with our unqualified recommendation, an unreserved must-buy score.

 

89% - 80%

EXCELLENT - These are excellent games. Anything that scores in this range is well worth your purchase, and is likely a great example of its genre. This is also a scoring range where we might reward specialist/niche games that are a real breakthrough in their own way.

 

79% - 70%

GOOD - These are pretty good games that we recommend to fans of the particular genre, though it's a safe bet you can probably find better options.

 

69% - 60%

ABOVE AVERAGE - Reasonable, above-average games. They might be worth buying, but they probably have a few significant flaws that limit their appeal.

 

59% - 50%

MERELY OKAY - Very ordinary games. They're not completely worthless, but there are likely numerous better places to spend your gaming dollar.

 

49% - 40%

TOLERABLE - Poor quality. Only a few slightly redeeming features keep these games from falling into the abyss of the next category.

 

39% - 0%

DON'T BOTHER - Just terrible. And the lower you go, the more worthless you get. Avoid these titles like the plague, and don't say we didn't warn you!

 

http://www.pcgamer.com/reviews/reviewsindex.html

 

And if anyone can find the PC gamer UK site I think they would have the EAW reveiw.