PC Gamer (83 %): Tight, challenging and stepped in History

[Korrigan]

PC Gamer, december 2007, p. 70:

Joly good review by Tim Stone

"I blame 3D engine, I also blame devs too short-sighted or mean to employ art talent like Robin Pirez and Sandra Rieunier-Duval, who have ensured this deep, turn based treatment of the War Between The States is as decorative and athmospheric as it is engrossing and elegant"

"By keeping their eyes firmly fixed on the strat/operational stratum, Devs AGEod have been able to create something tight, challenging and stepped in history"

"Playing as the Union I frequently find myself gravitating toward a Lincolnian approach (Southern port blockade, thrusts toward Richmond and Atlanta, stovepipe hats for all). Leading the Rebs, cavalry raids, deft nose-bloodying and mellow Kentucky bourbon become natural preoccupations"

Thanks!

[Pocus]

Note: There is a review so late after the initial deployment of AACW because it has just been distribued in retail chanels in the UK.

[ERutins]

That's an outstanding review for a wargame like AACW in a mainstream mag like PC Gamer.

[GShock]

That's an outstanding review for a wargame like AACW in a mainstream mag like PC Gamer.

I've been an editor for the italian counterpart of PC Gamer, called "The Games Machine" for over a year.
Reviewers have very limited time to test games and express a review with an appropriate rating. 1 month, sometimes much less.

Look at PES2008: terrific marketing campaign...they brainwashed peeps into thinking the product was far above the standards in quality. Reviewers followed this path giving good ratings...

Yet when it was released, it was a tragedy, especially for PS3 many sellers have already had to give refunds. Many copies were sent back (we removed the banner from our website as well ).

Strat Games like AACW, take much much longer than just 1 month to really be mastered.

I am absolutely sure if the reviewer had had more time, he would have given a much higher rating than 83% but no matter how high, everyone can see how the game improves V after V.
NPC rating will be much higher than that as it also exploits the positive feedback of AACW.

What PES2k8 experience teaches is that a good marketing campaign is a serious boost for sales but also, that quality and passparole are the best sellers (and if you mind, that ratings do not always show the real quality in the game reviewed)

[ERutins]

Hey GShock,

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I agree with you and I do think review time is a major factor as to why some complex wargames either don't get reviewed or receive lower scores than they should.

Does your mag review wargames or mainly mainstream titles?

Regards,

- Erik

[Walloc]

Back in the day. i did Freelance reviews for Politiken.dk a Dk newspaper that at that time had a fairly extensiv computer Add on every wedensday.

Since i had a keen interest in wargames and strategy games. i naturally got most of those titles. Usually i had 2, max 3, weeks from i got the game to my deadline.
I cant say if that in any ways is the norm or if it has changed since then, but by the nature of it having a game 2 weeks if its a complex game. Somes times i would have several titles in those 2 weeks. Ur / my review was influended by that, for sure. The officially allocated time in those 2 weeks would be 10 hours max, well that was what i was payed for. i usually played longer cuz it was my interest, but if other things interfered. Yes, i at times would only spend those 10 hours on a given game.
First off the number of pacthes that i could get in those 2 weeks was normally limited and if i look at how many games get supported months and months on after its release. I naturally couldnt include that in my reviews. That said this was late 90ies to early 00ies and things seem to have changes some what in that department.

If i look at reviews today, like on the wargamer it does seem that the time ppl have is alot longer. More like they play the game then review it. So its hard to compare.
I cant say i my experience is in any way how its done in more "streamlined" mags and newspapers today, but if it are and GShock migth support that. Doing a review of fairly complicated wargames cant be done in 10 hours. U can hardly finnish 1 campaign in most games in that time frame, let alone learn all of the game.
The review in that case is much more a feeling kinda thing than indeept analysis.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

[GShock]

@ER:
TGM is multipurpose videogames monthly magazine, reviewing all kinds of games from Console to PC...very often it comes out with CDs distributing games (to this purpose i counsel AgeOD [in the far future] to get in touch with them for distribution ). I don't work with TGM anymore. Last i did was game guide for America's Army. Came out on CD (got paid almost 500€ lol).

@Walloc:
Exactly. These mags are generally monthly issues. You can't be given an alpha 1 month in advance, prior to release, for testing purposes...it would basically mean a total leak in the launch of the game (Reviewer is external to DEV team) so, the only choice here is : Mag tasks reviewer to review a game which has just come out, the reviewer buys it (and is paid back by the MAG) plays it and by the end of the month, or at worst in the following month, he must have learned it, played it, assessed it and given a rating.

It is absolutely impossible with AACW.

I bought it in August, i play no other game (except ArmA wednesday nights hey it's tonite!) and I'm still discovering things on how it works (and i'm loving it because my strategic choices increase with each new thing i discover!)

Nothing else to say, except that i love this game.