IGN UK review is out

[warblah]

Click HERE. 8.9, not too bad

[Comrade]

IGN UK, should be mentioned. The US IGN hasn't yet rated it. Odd, though; I suspected following PC Gamer UK’s rating of 94% compared to PC Gamer US’ 90% it’d be they, not the States’ IGN who’d rate higher. Perhaps that'll still be true, though I can't see IGN doing that.

As for the review itself, it would seem the main complaint is that Medieval 2: Total War is evolutionary rather than revolutionary. A fine criticism, though as I myself absolutely adored Rome, that’s just fine for me.

[Yosemite]

Not too bad?


That is excelent man. It's not "not too bad" It is EXCELENT.

[Trajan]

The title has been fixed. 8.9 is not so bad. I wonder what the US IGN is going to give it.

[SPARTAN VI]

I wouldn't jump for joy over a 8.9, but ratings are relative. If I rate a game at 8.9, it's damn good, but there are enough flaws to keep it from being excellent (a 9.0+). Still, I've purchased many 8.0 games.. so I doubt I'll be dissapointed. Worst case scenario.. I go back to playing RTW.

[Yosemite]

I don't understand, it is 8.9! :hmmm: It is excellent.

[SPARTAN VI]

I don't understand, it is 8.9! :hmmm: It is excellent.

8.9 to me is just hinting at excellence. I would rate an 8.0-8.9 game like I would anything with a B-rating. Just short of excellence, but above average.

[I Don't Work Here]

I give that review a 5.9, for sweeping generalizations, vagueness, and lack of info.

It is a pity that all video game reviews are the same. Any thing GTA related or the next hyped up FPS will instantly get a 9.0+. The total war series provide much more replayablity than some repetitive shooter game.

[DougyM]

I give that review a 5.9, for sweeping generalizations, vagueness, and lack of info.

It is a pity that all video game reviews are the same. Any thing GTA related or the next hyped up FPS will instantly get a 9.0+. The total war series provide much more replayablity than some repetitive shooter game.

Laughed so hard reading that first bit.

*my dad said something similar during his last pay rise of 2.5%... "i give this pay rise 0%"*

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Its a fact of life, IGN and other part time pc reviewers (i say that because they are mainly console oriented) will always mark evolutionary games lower than revolutionary ones.

Plus the sheer blatant lack of interest in the game from the reviewer. its arguably the biggest RTS series of games and it gets a 2 page review with 30% of that being adverts for other games....

Still, i dont care what any other person thinks, ive loved TW from the days of shogun right up to Barb invasion... i can pretty much garauntee i will like MTW2.

[awisler]

8.9 - not bad, but i really dont think even played far into the game. quote- "Deeper into the game you even get to invade the New World, taking your Western weapons of war to wipe out the Incas."

also, noticed they arent very detailed, i could have written a more detailed review without even playing it...personally i think that score is to low and they are biased against m2tw. i just dont see any real reason as to why its an 8.9-granted i havent played the game yet, but they really didnt back their score up to great imo.

[Lord Kal]

Saying it deserves 8.5 for sound and 9.0 for graphics is a vast underrating.

A lot of reviewers seem to be biased against strategy games, apart from the 'who can build most units fastest' types like DOW.

[wipeout140]

Only review i take in to a account is my own

[Lord Janos]

Only review i take in to a account is my own

Too true, too true. I love some games which got mediocre reviews, and those which got 9.5 out of 10 or something ridiculous, like Half-Life 2 and the like, are ones that I generally find boring after a while. It's a matter of opinion... like whether you prefer the DS to the PSP.

[ProudNerd]

Too true, too true. I love some games which got mediocre reviews, and those which got 9.5 out of 10 or something ridiculous, like Half-Life 2 and the like, are ones that I generally find boring after a while. It's a matter of opinion... like whether you prefer the DS to the PSP.

indeed. Just look at C&C generals one of the worst strat games ever but reviewed glowing by all and sundry even tho most strat fans hated it.

[Mccray]

yeah its objective. I don't know but maybe if the guy/s reviewing it were hardcore total war fans the rating would be higher. For a strategy game of its genre it probably has the best graphics out there. Its better than RTWs graphics and light years ahead of AOE III graphics. You can't realy compair the graphics in a massive scale game like this to something like the graphics in shoebox FPS games.

[Candelarius]

I think 8.9 is a very good review, but, there is not very much "meat" to this review...it's more of a summary than a review. I also have to problems with the review. First, the reviewer states "Deeper into the game you even get to invade the New World, taking your Western weapons of war to wipe out the Incas." Incas? Can he not read the mouse overs or manual? Did he not read any of the other previews? Or are all early American peoples just simply "Incas" to the reviewer? Strange error. Also, I have a problem with his closing comments "To be honest, Total War would have benefited hugely from a total overhaul, because the experience is getting too similar to its predecessors for anyone familiar with the series. The interface is beginning to show its limitations, an...". Um, this is only the second title in the series to use the same basic engine, yet, to the reviewer, the series could have used a "total overhaul"? And the interface is "beginning to show it's limitations"? How so? It struck me that the reviewer simply borrowed from previous IGN preview material without actually playing the previews Total War titles...if even the one he was reviewing. Those are my thoughts, at least.

[Pnutmaster]

Only review i take in to a account is my own

...and the cumulative review from this website.

I simply cannot trust any other website, especially websites like IGN and Gamespot. They're biased to the dollar.

[ProudNerd]

...and the cumulative review from this website.

I simply cannot trust any other website, especially websites like IGN and Gamespot. They're biased to the dollar.

whats so special abotu that? they labeled the pc gamers review dec2006 pg 122 8-)

[InferiorBeing]

I too wish they could have gone into more detail. But saying "They don't love the game as much as I think they should", is hardly a valid and unbiased comment either.

[InferiorBeing]

I can't really think of any strategy game with graphics as good as M2TW either. Maybe they were comparing them to the graphics of modern FPSs? That's just not right.

I still think they had many good points, but one statement puzzles me.

They said that all the Total War games were becoming too much of the same thing. How can they say that? The TW series are all about building stuff on the campaign map, and then flanking and wheeling your way through the battle map. If they changed that, it wouldn't be TW anymore. That's like complaining about an FPS having too much shooting in first person.