|
Khornish -> RE: a new review (12/24/2005 3:34:51 AM)
|
CoG definately fills a niche that has been missing for a lot of us. EIA was a great boardgame, but it is as abstract if not more so than CoG in most areas. If someone likes Axis and Allies, the boardgame, then CoG isn't too far a stretch from that, and CoG does have a bit more detail to it overall.
My only real issue gameplay wise is that you can't choose to play a detailed battle in any multi-player game. I hope this is implimented in the future or at least in a future version.
I have other, smaller, issues, but the development crew have been very responsive, at least by the way they post here in these forums and that is a <bleep> <bleep> of a lot better than you're going to get from EA, Microsoft, 2K, and what was once Atari.
BoN looks to be something that fills a niche too and I hope we'll see it released before summer 2006. I doubt we'll see EIA before mid-2007 without some kind of miracle taking place. Not knocking that team at all, but their task is not a small one.
I have _personal_ experience with Bill Trotter and how he does his "reviews". I take anything he prints with a bottle of salt and still double check it. Every so often he'll have a diamond in the rough, but that's about it from my experience.
As far as the review in question above. Hell a review is subjective anyways and it appears CoG was good enough for the reviewer to overcome a number of his prejudices.
I certainly feel I got of my money's worth after playing with the game for a few hours than I did from Civ IV, AOE III, or B&W 2. At least CoG installed and ran properly from the get go.
|
|
|
|
