Does PCgamer UK have a grudge against Matrix?

ravinhood · Post by **ravinhood** » Tue Nov 04, 2003 8:29 pm

Why is it nearly every game I see reviewed by PCgamer UK for Matrix gets below 50 ratings? Just recently I saw Tigers of Steel on Gamerankings.com 47%.

Either that reviewer doesn't know a thing about wargames and games in general and especially doesn't know how to give a "non-biased" consumer review or he doesn't know how to really score these games.

Maybe he's scoring the game on the British lb vs the American dollar, heh, that would give Titans of Steel a 70somthing rating which is more realistic than 47. Since PCgamer US gave it a 79, seems logical, he thinks he's an accountant instead of a game reviewer! LOL

That mag needs to be boycotted until they get someone in the reviewers chair that knows how to review games and give realistic scores instead of total bias scores.

axrael · Post by **axrael** » Tue Nov 04, 2003 10:41 pm

Articles - 10 On File AVERAGE RATIO: 70.7% - (62.8%)
Site Name / Link Article Date Rating Ratio
Game Zone 8/6/2003 8.6 out of 10 86.0%
All About Games UK 9/29/2003 8 out of 10 80.0%
PC Gamer 11/1/2003 79 out of 100 79.0%
IcronTic Games 9/10/2003 67 out of 100 67.0%
GameCell 10/7/2003 6 out of 10 60.0%
PC Gamer UK 11/1/2003 47 out of 100 47.0%
Strategy Informer 10/22/2003 4.2 out of 10 42.0%
PC Format UK 11/1/2003 41 out of 100 41.0%

By no means the lowest score though is it....

rosary · Post by **rosary** » Wed Nov 05, 2003 12:25 am

I think its more important that these reviews show some pictures of what the game looks like and spells the name of the game correctly.
I especially appreciate that they gave the link for the freeware in PC gamer UK. By all means, try the freeware. TOSWS offers a unique game experience for wargamers, strategy fans, fans of Giant Fighting robots and sci-fi fans.

Also, most of these reviews see the interface as a minus. Its not. It is a very new and unique style of play. It is deeply rewarding to those that learn it. Its worth the effort and you only have to learn how to play it once. It is really not as difficult as the reviewers write. Forget what you know about games and open your mind to a new tactical gaming experience with TOSWS.

Just Play · Post by **Just Play** » Mon Nov 10, 2003 11:37 pm

As a product manager for wargames, first for SSI with US Gold (Now part of Eidos), then Interactive Magic, and more recently with Just Play, I have become pretty thick-skinned with regards to the reviews given to hardcore wargames.

The problem is reviewers in magazines like PC Gamer and PC Zone use a scale for all games, and do not split them down into relevant categories, so a game like Titans of Steel is never going to score highly in comparison to the multi-million dollar games from major publishers.

In America products do seem to be rated accorded the the category they sit within, and we therefore see PC Gamer US giving a game like Korsun Pocket 93% as they perceive it to be the best within the Wargame-specific scale, whereas the UK edition of PC Gamer rated Korsun Pocket at 68% on the "all games ever made" scale.

I have tried for many years to convince journalists and editors to take follow the American approach, but with no success to date.

Hertston · Post by **Hertston** » Tue Nov 11, 2003 1:08 am

Great to see your input here, Bob. As you are here I'd like to take the opportunity to thank you guys for the way you have handled the distribution of the Matrix games in your catalogue - reasonable pricing, excellent presentation including decent paper manuals, and above all promptness - getting us the games only a week or so after our US friends. GJ

Back to the subject at hand, I think ToS (which I enjoy immensely) was set up for a poor review on two fronts. First is graphics, in all honesty anything other than a specialised wargames publication was always going to hammer it for that. Second is, as Rosary says, the UI and a totally unique style of play. Reviewers no longer value "unique" anything.. first it takes some time and thought to get to grips with, but mostly I think they are almost afraid to go out on a limb and say "hey, this is great", because the know colleagues and rivals who havn't made the effort will hammer it anyway.

What summed that review up for me (I think it was PC Gamer, PC Zone was predictably even less kind as I recall) was the "play MC2 instead" comment. Anyone who has (which must include many ToS buyers) will know that game was is very pretty, atmospheric... and totally predictable, boring and uninspired, not a patch on MC 1. But "pretty" is the imporant thing for many of their readers, and they write to that... for more important than "trivia" like "tactical depth".

Just Play · Post by **Just Play** » Tue Nov 11, 2003 3:59 pm

Thanks for your comments it is nice to see our efforts are appreciated.

I agree that the pretty "eye candy" hurdle is always going to be tough for hard core strategy game to get over.

Reviewers also face the problem of really not being able to devote amount of time that strategy game players do to actually discover any of the deeper features a game like Titans of Steel has to offer.

Hertston · Post by **Hertston** » Fri Nov 14, 2003 4:59 am

axrael wrote:
By no means the lowest score though is it....

PC Gamer and PC Format were hardly surprising (neither was PC Zone, which was similar). I checked out that "Strategy Informer" review though.. he had no problem with the graphics but how about this for a gem;

"The problem arises in the complexity of achieving this. I don’t consider myself to be much of a slouch when it comes to strategy gaming, but it took me nearly 2 days just to get a mech doing something right in the tutorial. "

C'mon dude, it may be a little different, but it isn't that bad