PC Gamer Swedish review out

[cloud4me]

-ID Software have done something that is very unusual, they have created a game that is superb from the beginning to the end

-Classic weapons

-Very good story

-Good design

-A movielike experience

-Scary. Very scary.

-A game like Doom3 wouldnt work if it wasnt for the great graphic. After playing the game on a 6800Ultra I have to say that the graphics is very important. One reason that the sequences that shocks you works, is that the enviroment is so detail that it feels real.

Total score: 90%


from futuremark forums


* oops, I'm afraid this is wrong forum to this thread.

[TwiNCannoN]

I love how all these moron magazine writers are like "omg nothing could be better/has been better" and give it a bad review (and if you're wondering why I say "bad review" of 90-96%, consider this: shitty games like final fantasy 10 and MGS 2 have gotten higher...).

[SupremeGeneral]

Reviews are nonsence, have always been nonsence, and always will be nonsence

[Tyockell]

Yeaa there dumbshits who dont know there asshole from there mouths.

[Godshatter]

well, so far a 90% is the lowest its gotten so far.

that just goes to show you how... *thinks of word* dammit... i cant think of the word!!

variable? - no thats not it. bah, u know what i mean. one guy gives it a 90, another a 94, a third a 96. u get the idea.

[Scuba Steve]

Are you guys idiots? 90% is a VERY good score. If you ever read the PC score guide, it says 90-100% - a true classic. Doom3 scoring consistent 90s is VERY good news. I was concerned that the reviews would be High 70s. Generally, I agree with most of PC Gamer's reviews. If they say Doom3 is a 90%, that's great news to me.

[Wobbo]

SupremeGeneral said:

Reviews are nonsence, have always been nonsence, and always will be nonsence

^^what he said

[mediaxs]

In the context of other games, 90% is shit.

PC gamer gave Far Cry a 95% and Doom 3 a 94%.

How the fuck does Far Cry in it's buggy state score higher than Doom 3?

The game is fun for the first few levels but turns to crap at the end. The end is so crappy it's pretty much not worth finishing.

The Doom 3 review found far less faults with it than the Far Cry review they did. Yet they rate FC higher?

Far Cry had some huge bugs and Doom 3 had a few jokes that the reviewer didn't like. Ok, which is worse? Bugs or a joke the some moronic reviewer didn't like? Of course bugs are worse and that should have been reflected in the score. PC gamer has some total fucktards working for them.

[Tyockell]

Yeaaa I dont fuckiin kno anything about FCC as rigght now my computerr is a piece of worm infeste shit and im waitin forr my new onee but I think theyy are dumbas's and personlyy id give doom 3 a 99.5 from what I'v seen... I'd ha done a fantastic job.

[Scuba Steve]

It's subjective you dink. I've always been partial to PC Gamer's "100%" as opposed to the "Five Stars" or whatever. It seems to give it that extra area for half scores and a little more here.

Half Life got what... a 97, Alpha Centauri a 98, Civilization 2 a 96. Yet PC Gamer always places Civ 2 over Alpha Centari in "Best games ever" specials. For the most part their reviews are categorized into 5 areas 50 and under, 60-70, 70-80, 80-90, 90-100... and then they use the single digits for telling you if it's a high or low in that category. 90/94 are both excellent reviews for a game, and is a completely independent score of any other reviews done. And maybe they're right, maybe Doom 3 isn't as good as far cry... D3 isn't out yet, so they could theoretically be correct.

[mediaxs]

I highly doubt it since Far Cry is a rushed game. Doom 3 has been in the works for 4 years.

With ID's track record, I'd bet money that Doom 3 is more polished and a better game experience.

Far Cry's score of 95% was completely wrong. With all it's problems the highest I could see giving it is a 90%.

If it had no bugs,better plot,AI, and better ending, then a 95% would have been acceptable.

[Grul]

Far Cry was an excellent game in both mine and, as it seems, the pc gamer reviewer's opinion. It will probably be silly to compare the two games since they will have very different settings and athmosphere. It isn't as simple as that Doom 3 had "fewer faults", I think the reviewer judged the game more from the feeling he got from it, which is what he should do.

[Shaviro]

90% is the same as 9/10 or 4.5/5
It's a fine score.

[Melfice]

Who gives a fuck about the reviews by now, they're all the same. We know it will be good, and obviously live up to our expectations, so these shitty reviews are irrelevant. I'm pretty sure we've learned all we're going to about Doom 3 until it comes out next week anyway.

[insertwackynamehere]

SupremeGeneral said:

Reviews are nonsence, have always been nonsence, and always will be nonsence

What about nonsense :D

Anyway, America PCGamer gave it a 94% just because of some bad jokes :P

[Lord FlatHead]

Who cares about small percentage differences. If that was all that mattered, magazines could just do six pages of screenshots and the percentage at the end.

[mediaxs]

Problem with the Far Cry review is the 95%. It doesn't live up to that score.

I'm not saying Far Cry is a bad game. It was a fun game but far too many faults to get that high. Replay value is very low due to the poor multiplayer. It's really not that great to play the single player through more than once. Even on ramped up difficulty the gameplay doesn't improve because the developer simply chose to increase hitpoints for enemies for higher difficulty. Damn it sure would have been nice if they worked the AI over a little and actually had the enemies behave smarter when on highest difficulty. Instead they do something that requires no extra programming. Anyone could increase the enemy damage in the game scripts.

Call of Cuty, a game I've had much longer is still racking up way more play time than my copy of Far Cry. The multiplayer in COD is very polished compared to FC.

A game like COD should get a score around 95%. That makes sense to me.

In that very same magazine where Far Cry gets a 95%, near the back there is a column where another contributor to the magazine points out what seems to be a disagreement with the review on Far Cry.

Then here lies the problem in my opinion (If these scores do matter, I think they do as some people do compare scores between games for purchases), it's obvious that the entire staff didn't necessarily agree with the review. They then need to get way more input on major game reviews. Instead of one reviewer determining the final score, maybe they should all chip in on the final score average (obviously one reviewer can write the review still).

I seriously think if all the review staff chipped in on the Far Cry review, it would have gotten closer to a 90% score. Still a great game but it does have some problems. And Doom 3 based on the faults compared to Far Cry's would score around what Far Cry originally got, a 95-97%.

Think about it. Some people actually take these scores seriously (and some of these gaming magazines are vocal about the accuracy/fairness of their scoring systems) and buy games based of these reviews. One reviewer's opinion on MAJOR game releases is TOO subjective. Some jokes that the reviewer didn't find funny in a review that otherwise pointed out NO faults gets Doom 3 a 6% deduction? Far Cry with bugs and weak multiplayer (I think that was the words they used) gets a 95%?

I really hope they change they way they review games before HL2 is released. Imagine if they give the HL2 review to someone who happens to hate HP Lovecraft?:

"So basically I can find no faults with the game, it's awesome fun, except I find some of the plot elements way to cheesy and they smack of HP Lovecraft (god I hate cheesy science fiction). Score: 93%"

Would you be happy with that subjectivity? Not much different that the reviewer who was put off by a few jokes in Doom 3.

How justified would Far Cry's score be then?

[Black Hand]

Can we cut the crap here. The people who give the percentage grades of these games only play the game for two days tops before writing their review. Don’t sit there trying to pretend that the “grades” are relevant and meaningful.

There is no spoon people.

[mediaxs]

That's the point though. These magazines want you to believe that their scores ARE relevant.

And these scores would be if they were LESS SUBJECTIVE.

I don't think it is unreasonable to expect a review that gets multiple input (objective) and a score that reflects this. EGM does this but for consoles....my xbox has been collecting dust for a year now so I don't read EGM lately.

True, in the end it doesn't matter for well informed gamers. But for the casual gamer looking to pick up a great fps, that person is going to see Far Cry 95%, Doom 3 94% and probably buy Far Cry based on the scores (placing trust in the scores that Far Cry is the better game if only by 1%).

Personally I wouldn't mind an EGM style review were 4 reviewers have a go at the game and the resulting scores are averaged. This is somewhat objective compared to having one person determine the score.

That is all. If they are going to rate games, they should atleast make the scores actually relevant.

[Epyo]

sorry all I hear is wah wah wah PC Gamer sux poo kekeke

[mediaxs]

Nah, actually PC Gamer is my favorite PC mag. I just wish they'd adopt EGM style reviews for important games.

I think Far Cry, Doom 3, HL2, STALKER, and a few others qualify as IMPORTANT.