Great read on COG at Wargamer... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Napoleonics] >> Crown of Glory



Message

TheHellPatrol -> Great read on COG at Wargamer... (8/25/2005 9:51:16 PM)

http://www.wargamer.com/reviews/crown_of_glory/
Very well written, thorough review giving COG the respect it deserves for its' comprehensiveness.



bluemonday -> RE: Great read on COG at Wargamer... (8/27/2005 7:18:00 PM)

Another interminable Wargamer review. Pass.

Here is a shorter, and probably more insightful review, written by an industry writer on his own page.

http://uticensis.blogspot.com/2005/08/on-site-review-crown-of-glory.html



Hard Sarge -> RE: Great read on COG at Wargamer... (8/27/2005 7:53:06 PM)

not too sure
this guys sounds like a reveiwer who does not like or play the style of game he is reviewing, so does not understand what it is he is reviewing

(I remember one review on a D-Day game, based on the landing at one of the beaches, he thought it was a decent game, but the designer really blew it, when he didn't put in, letting the player have the choice of where to land, like you should be able to land in Norway or southern France, a game about around a 20 mile quid, and he wants it to cover the whole map of europe)




bluemonday -> RE: Great read on COG at Wargamer... (8/27/2005 7:58:35 PM)

The writer in question is pretty much exclusively a strategy/historical strategy gamer, so I'm sure he understands the game and what it's trying to do. Are you saying this same reviewer criticized a D-Day game because it would not allow you to land in southern France?



Hard Sarge -> RE: Great read on COG at Wargamer... (8/27/2005 8:27:53 PM)

no, I am saying it reads like the guy has no idea of what a wargame is

(I was talking about another review I seen a long time ago in a Mag, LOL, it is like a old favorite game of mine, Wizards Crown, a nice old fasion Hack and Slash game, the reviewers complaint about it, was that it was too much hack and slash, it should of been this, it should of been that, no, it was designed to be a hack and slash game, and did it very well, for it's time, but wasn't what the reveiwer wanted or liked, so it wasn't any good)

"if you could separate the wargame component and make it a distinct MP option, you could justify its inclusion. As it now stands, it's unnecessary and will rarely - if ever - be used."

lets put it this way, if he was a used car saleman, I wouldn't be buying a car from him, and I will not be buying any games based on what he has to say about them

HARD_Sarge




strategy -> RE: Great read on COG at Wargamer... (8/28/2005 12:51:10 AM)

The reviewer in question is almost exclusively a reviewer of strategy games and wargames, so he is certainly not unfamiliar with them. [:D]



siRkid -> RE: Great read on COG at Wargamer... (8/28/2005 1:34:36 AM)

Well he is entitled to his views, but I for one love the detailed battles and have seen more than one request to make them even larger. I could go for that.[:D]



bluemonday -> RE: Great read on COG at Wargamer... (8/31/2005 9:17:09 AM)

The magazine reviews are appearing now, btw. 3 stars (out of 5) at Computer Games Magazine, 2.5 (out of 5) stars at Computer Gaming World.



Reg Pither -> RE: Great read on COG at Wargamer... (8/31/2005 10:28:42 AM)

"UK or US PC Gamer, or any of the mags (apart from CGW maybe) aren't going to like this game, methinks."

That was my post a few weeks ago, and I'm disappointed to be proved right and wrong at the same time. Only 2.5 from CGW??[:(]



Mr. Z -> RE: Great read on COG at Wargamer... (8/31/2005 4:10:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bluemonday

The magazine reviews are appearing now, btw. 3 stars (out of 5) at Computer Games Magazine, 2.5 (out of 5) stars at Computer Gaming World.

I've checked the ToCs of CGM online, and searched the CGW site, and couldn't find anything. Are you saying you've read a review in the current newsstand copy?



bluemonday -> RE: Great read on COG at Wargamer... (8/31/2005 8:21:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr. Z
Are you saying you've read a review in the current newsstand copy?

Yes. I actually have the CGW review sitting on my desk as I'm a subscriber.



bluemonday -> RE: Great read on COG at Wargamer... (8/31/2005 8:25:41 PM)

And this guy has a note on his blog saying the October CGM is out and the Crown of Glory review is in there.

I read on another forum that the CGM Online server is in Florida and has been down for several days due to the hurricane, so they are probably behind in updating the ToC to reflect the current issue.



Mr. Z -> RE: Great read on COG at Wargamer... (8/31/2005 9:33:44 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bluemonday

And this guy has a note on his blog saying the October CGM is out and the Crown of Glory review is in there.

I read on another forum that the CGM Online server is in Florida and has been down for several days due to the hurricane, so they are probably behind in updating the ToC to reflect the current issue.

Possibly. I don't think it was the October (!) issue of CGM I was looking at, so that also probably explains that one. Guess it's off to the bookstore tonight!



jhdeerslayer -> RE: Great read on COG at Wargamer... (9/1/2005 12:11:35 AM)

I saw it in a CGW hard copy just last night. Short and sweet and not very flattering.



JosephL -> RE: Great read on COG at Wargamer... (9/1/2005 2:22:05 AM)

The long and the short of it:

Nobody influences reviews at wargamer. He gave it a 7 for mainstream audiences. A 3 is, in fact, a 6 (not so far off from 7). A 2.5 is disappointing but almost every game has a bad review here and there. The only game I know of which hasn't was Battles in Normandy (with a low score of 80).

Giocatti magazine (Italian equiv of PC Gamer) gave it an 80 as well. I suspect when the smoke clears CoG will weigh in with an average aroudn 75% overall and I am almost certain no lower than a 70%.

This means that Wargamer's score of 70 will probably pull the average DOWN if anything. Even after the 50% the current average is 72% and that will go back up with some more positive reviews (which I have been told are en route from a couple places).

Each writer is welcome to their opinion though! Read the good and the bad folks, that way you won't have any surprises and you will be that much more satisfied with your purchase (realistic expectations).

-Joe



solops -> RE: Great read on COG at Wargamer... (9/1/2005 3:10:59 AM)

The Wargamer review was outstanding, easily the best of the ones I have seen. That seems to be the only place one can find comprehensive reviews by people who like to play wargames.



bluemonday -> RE: Great read on COG at Wargamer... (9/1/2005 7:03:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Reg Pither

"UK or US PC Gamer, or any of the mags (apart from CGW maybe) aren't going to like this game, methinks."

That was my post a few weeks ago, and I'm disappointed to be proved right and wrong at the same time. Only 2.5 from CGW??[:(]

I don't think it's fair to say that none of the mags liked it. 3/5 stars at Computer Games Mag is a good review score.

As I recall, the discussion some weeks ago was centered around the proposition that the magazines would not like the game simply because it was not the kind of game they'd like - i.e. not flashy. Reading the reviews, that isn't the issue at all. I think all the reviewers have been strategy game and wargame fans who aren't impressed by flashiness. Instead, the game has some serious issues, some of which have been identified on this forum. Remember, a forum is going to contain the game's biggest fans. So I understand that the people here are going to disagree. That's just the way it is.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
3.0625