US PC Gamer review

[Swe_gamer]

Wasn´t there the first review in the US version of PC Gamer as well? If so, please let us know more about this and what score the game got.

If there wasn´t a review I apologize and please delete this.

[God-Emperor of Mankind]

Yes it seems it got 90%.
Seems like the only problem was slight pathfinding problem and no naval battles.

[Candelarius]

How could they complain about no naval battles? That's not a feature of the game! None of the previous games had naval battles either. How retarded. That's like complaining there are no horse-racing mini-games at the hippodrome in RTW! Stupid.

[Beiss]

How could they complain about no naval battles? That's not a feature of the game!

Maybe they were complaining because they wanted naval battles to be a feature of the game? Is that beyond your imagination? I sure think it would be a better game if there were naval battles.

[the_mango55]

Maybe they were complaining because they wanted naval battles to be a feature of the game? Is that beyond your imagination? I sure think it would be a better game if there were naval battles.

And I'm sure Civ 4 or Alpha Centauri would have been a better game if it had real time battles like Total War, did they penalize them?

Here's a hint, the answer is no, they did not.

[DougyM]

And I'm sure Civ 4 or Alpha Centauri would have been a better game if it had real time battles like Total War, did they penalize them?

Here's a hint, the answer is no, they did not.

Agreed.

TW games are all about the land battles, and the strategic campaign.... you cant critisise them for things they have never claimed or tried to implement.

It would be like complaining that the entire world isnt on the campaign map..... just cos it existed at the time of the game doesnt mean it needs to be included.

EDIT: but i suppose its a good thing that the reveiwers main complaint is about something that he would have liked to see rather than his reveiw containing a list of things he hates.....

[Swe_gamer]

Yes it seems it got 90%.
Seems like the only problem was slight pathfinding problem and no naval battles.

Ok thanks

Wow they really know how to make good reviews don´t they? Do not understand why CA gives them exclusives. 90% is not bad but I have a recollection that US PCgamer is less thrilled about the total war series than the average pc mag and has lame reviews.

Didn´t they say anything else of interest?

[Spiff]

The naval battles is a valid criticism, and if anything just goes to show how grand the rest of the game must be. It seems to me that with such an overhaul of the graphics in the battle engine that naval battles would have been possible with a little bit of effort, and fans of the series have definitely been calling for them from time to time.

I wouldnt complain though, its a minor issue, as shown by the overall review score

[Charok]

Yes it seems it got 90%.
Seems like the only problem was slight pathfinding problem and no naval battles.

It gets 90 out of a 100%. That's 9/10. I don't see how someone could complain about an almost perfect score. Although many game scoring systems are pointless because the people implementing them don't know what they are doing. PC Gamer might be one of them since they are set up to use 1 through 100. That is probably the worst scoring method still in use.

[God-Emperor of Mankind]

Well CA probably expected higher.
But it depends on how you see things.
Maybe Pcgamer gave it a lower review because 1. The game is harder(I know some reviewers gave BI a lower grade because it was too hard), 2. Battles are slower or 3. like Spiff said, that maybe the game is so complete that naval battles suddenly becomes needed.

[Ork]

Well CA probably expected higher.
But it depends on how you see things.
Maybe Pcgamer gave it a lower review because 1. The game is harder(I know some reviewers gave BI a lower grade because it was too hard), 2. Battles are slower or 3. like Spiff said, that maybe the game is so complete that naval battles suddenly becomes needed.

And because they are reviewing beta.

[God-Emperor of Mankind]

And because they are reviewing beta.

Nope, they were reviewing the full game.
Letting them review the beta would be a silly thing.

[Lord Kal]

It gets 90 out of a 100%. That's 9/10. I don't see how someone could complain about an almost perfect score. Although many game scoring systems are pointless because the people implementing them don't know what they are doing. PC Gamer might be one of them since they are set up to use 1 through 100. That is probably the worst scoring method still in use.

Don't be completely stupid. There's a big difference between a low 8 and a high 8.

[Charok]

How exactly is the 1-100 scoring system bad? If anything its the best as its the most precise.

How is someone supposed to really know the difference between a 35 and a 45, a 55 and a 65, or a 89 and a 92 in terms of PC Gamer? Some people may think of the grade school system and if a game gets under 70 it's bad, and 80 is decent, and 90 is good. But this is supposed to be a 1-100 scale. So a decent, bland game should only get around a 50% because that is the average out of 100.

Then we have the "good to great" games that fight over the PC Gamer 88-96% scores. I've seen people warring over 94% vs 96% scores. It is silly because the reviewers don't keep the scores consistent with the system they have. 55% compared to a 58% doesn't make a review more "precise" at all. There are too many numbers there. So what is the point of so many useless numbers? There isn't. Does it make scoring more confusing for reviewers and readers? Yes. People will still have to read the summary statements to see what the reviewer thought of it anyway.

Don't be completely stupid. There's a big difference between a low 8 and a high 8.

I'm guessing by this rude quote from Lord Kal that he wants the grade school system, but that system doesn't make sense in a 1-100 scale system, Mr. Kal.
Oh, and Lord Kal, you're on notice.

[Reiver]

That's all true but what is better? /5 is far too imprecise /10 less so but suffers from a lot of simplification and the association with console mags who keep on giving 10/10 (a perfect game?) to carp. Anything else is too unconventional.

Anyway it's the review not the score that counts.

[Shaun]

It gets 90 out of a 100%. That's 9/10. I don't see how someone could complain about an almost perfect score. Although many game scoring systems are pointless because the people implementing them don't know what they are doing. PC Gamer might be one of them since they are set up to use 1 through 100. That is probably the worst scoring method still in use.

How exactly is the 1-100 scoring system bad? If anything its the best as its the most precise.

Critisising MTW2 for not having naval battles is perfectly valid. You see, although the sea isnt important enough to decide the future of an empire, it is the key to wealthy trade and naval invasions. The auto resolve is far too random to trust ultra expensive fleets to always beat ancient crap, the harder the difficulty the more losses the playwe takes in auto resolve, meaning that if you play on ultra hard then you will mostly lose an auto resolve and always take heavy causulties, not good. The player needs to be able to control his fleets to get the best result, the AI just spams fleets at you and eventually beets you with sheer weight of numbers, its annoying when an ultra expensive army in a fleet gets sunk because the stupid admirals couldnt beat a fleet half their size and half their firepower.

[God-Emperor of Mankind]

Well I didn't read it myself, just what the guy that did said.
Other then that they were praising it.

[Zawath]

Well shiip battles should be a feature of the game since they were pretty important.

[Carach]

the sea was all that needed upgrading for naval battles (possibly physics is the only thing left that the current engine simply cant manage?)

I guess they got to keep things to put in for future games

[The Mongol]

Naval battles or not 90% from PC Gamer is pretty good.