XXXXXX

98 results
1
2
3

This topic is locked from further discussion.

11783

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1 GlenQuagmire

Member since 2003 • 11783 Posts

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/commandconquer3/index.html?tag=topten;all;title;2

Bu-bu-bu-but there's no innovation.

17 years ago

smokeydabear076

22109

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#2 smokeydabear076

Member since 2004 • 22109 Posts

Nice to see that it is still doing well.:D

17 years ago

Einhanderkiller

13259

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#3 Einhanderkiller

Member since 2003 • 13259 Posts

I'm a little surprised, to be honest. I didn't think the demo was all that great. Guess I'll have to check out the retail game.

17 years ago

11783

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4 GlenQuagmire

Member since 2003 • 11783 Posts

I loved how so many of you complained about balance issues, although you're only able to play one faction in the demo.

17 years ago

101

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2007 • 101 Posts

WOW I can't believe they let there tech guy who has never reviewed a game before here review the game, EA must have pushed hard to get him to review it.

17 years ago

smokeydabear076

22109

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#6 smokeydabear076

Member since 2004 • 22109 Posts

I loved how so many of you complained about balance issues, although you're only able to play one faction in the demo.GlenQuagmire

There is a way that you can play as NOD in the demo.

17 years ago

smokeydabear076

22109

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#8 smokeydabear076

Member since 2004 • 22109 Posts

WOW I can't believe they let there tech guy who has never reviewed a game before here review the game, EA must have pushed hard to get him to review it.MoeMania

Excuses, Excuses.:roll: I am sure any good review that this game recieves will be because of bribes.......:|

17 years ago

101

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2007 • 101 Posts

[QUOTE="MoeMania"]WOW I can't believe they let there tech guy who has never reviewed a game before here review the game, EA must have pushed hard to get him to review it.smokeydabear076

Excuses, Excuses.:roll:

I think the tech guy who has never reviewed a game here before is a fairly valid point

17 years ago

smokeydabear076

22109

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#10 smokeydabear076

Member since 2004 • 22109 Posts

[QUOTE="smokeydabear076"][QUOTE="MoeMania"]WOW I can't believe they let there tech guy who has never reviewed a game before here review the game, EA must have pushed hard to get him to review it.MoeMania

Excuses, Excuses.:roll:

I think the tech guy who has never reviewed a game here before is a fairly valid point

This is not his first review, what are you talking about?

17 years ago

Einhanderkiller

13259

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#11 Einhanderkiller

Member since 2003 • 13259 Posts

WOW I can't believe they let there tech guy who has never reviewed a game before here review the game, EA must have pushed hard to get him to review it.MoeMania

http://www.gamespot.com/users/Kevin-V/contributions He's not a tech guy, by the way. He's the "Community Coordinator" (I think). He sets up Gamespot tournaments and moderates the forums.

17 years ago

101

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2007 • 101 Posts

[QUOTE="MoeMania"][QUOTE="smokeydabear076"][QUOTE="MoeMania"]WOW I can't believe they let there tech guy who has never reviewed a game before here review the game, EA must have pushed hard to get him to review it.smokeydabear076

Excuses, Excuses.:roll:

I think the tech guy who has never reviewed a game here before is a fairly valid point

This is not his first review, what are you talking about?

What else has he reviewed? If it happens to be his big game review I think my point is just as valid considering how big this game is, gamespot has always use there big names for big releases, them not doing it here is just odd.

17 years ago

101

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2007 • 101 Posts

Just as I thought, the guys brand new with only a handful of games under his belt and he gets one of the biggest releases this year? I don't think GS has ever done anything like that before...

17 years ago

smokeydabear076

22109

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#14 smokeydabear076

Member since 2004 • 22109 Posts

[QUOTE="smokeydabear076"][QUOTE="MoeMania"][QUOTE="smokeydabear076"][QUOTE="MoeMania"]WOW I can't believe they let there tech guy who has never reviewed a game before here review the game, EA must have pushed hard to get him to review it.MoeMania

Excuses, Excuses.:roll:

I think the tech guy who has never reviewed a game here before is a fairly valid point

This is not his first review, what are you talking about?

What else has he reviewed? If it happens to be his second or third or fourth I think my point is just as valid considering how big this game is, gamespot has always use there big names for big releases, them not doing it here is just odd.

Who cares? It is a good score, why are you disappointed?

17 years ago

101

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2007 • 101 Posts

[QUOTE="MoeMania"][QUOTE="smokeydabear076"][QUOTE="MoeMania"][QUOTE="smokeydabear076"][QUOTE="MoeMania"]WOW I can't believe they let there tech guy who has never reviewed a game before here review the game, EA must have pushed hard to get him to review it.smokeydabear076

Excuses, Excuses.:roll:

I think the tech guy who has never reviewed a game here before is a fairly valid point

This is not his first review, what are you talking about?

What else has he reviewed? If it happens to be his second or third or fourth I think my point is just as valid considering how big this game is, gamespot has always use there big names for big releases, them not doing it here is just odd.

Who cares? It is a good score, why are you disappointed?

Because a review from this guy is really pointless, for big name games you need reviewers who have a substantial track record and aside from this gamespot has delivered just that every big name game. Ocampo should have been the one to review it because then it wouldn't be this contraversy.

17 years ago

1442

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

Member since 2003 • 1442 Posts

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/commandconquer3/index.html?tag=topten;all;title;2
Bu-bu-bu-but there's no innovation.
GlenQuagmire

Now thats what I'm talk'n about! It brings innovation: tabbed building is back (and you can build things simultaneously).

17 years ago

smokeydabear076

22109

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#17 smokeydabear076

Member since 2004 • 22109 Posts

[QUOTE="smokeydabear076"][QUOTE="MoeMania"][QUOTE="smokeydabear076"][QUOTE="MoeMania"][QUOTE="smokeydabear076"][QUOTE="MoeMania"]WOW I can't believe they let there tech guy who has never reviewed a game before here review the game, EA must have pushed hard to get him to review it.MoeMania

Excuses, Excuses.:roll:

I think the tech guy who has never reviewed a game here before is a fairly valid point

This is not his first review, what are you talking about?

What else has he reviewed? If it happens to be his second or third or fourth I think my point is just as valid considering how big this game is, gamespot has always use there big names for big releases, them not doing it here is just odd.

Who cares? It is a good score, why are you disappointed?

Because a review from this guy is really pointless, for big name games you need reviewers who have a substantial track record and aside from this gamespot has delivered just that every big name game. Ocampo should have been the one to review it because then it wouldn't be this contraversy.

Who cares about reviews anyways? This game is fun to me therefore a purchase is well justified, if you did not like the demo then do not purchase this game at least that is what people normally do.

17 years ago

101

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2007 • 101 Posts

[QUOTE="MoeMania"][QUOTE="smokeydabear076"][QUOTE="MoeMania"][QUOTE="smokeydabear076"][QUOTE="MoeMania"][QUOTE="smokeydabear076"][QUOTE="MoeMania"]WOW I can't believe they let there tech guy who has never reviewed a game before here review the game, EA must have pushed hard to get him to review it.smokeydabear076

Excuses, Excuses.:roll:

I think the tech guy who has never reviewed a game here before is a fairly valid point

This is not his first review, what are you talking about?

What else has he reviewed? If it happens to be his second or third or fourth I think my point is just as valid considering how big this game is, gamespot has always use there big names for big releases, them not doing it here is just odd.

Who cares? It is a good score, why are you disappointed?

Because a review from this guy is really pointless, for big name games you need reviewers who have a substantial track record and aside from this gamespot has delivered just that every big name game. Ocampo should have been the one to review it because then it wouldn't be this contraversy.

Who cares about reviews anyways? This game is fun to me therefore a purchase is well justified, if you did not like the demo then do not purchase this game at least that is what people normally do.

Who cares about the reviews?! Why are you even here talking about them then?

17 years ago

1442

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

Member since 2003 • 1442 Posts

[QUOTE="smokeydabear076"][QUOTE="MoeMania"][QUOTE="smokeydabear076"][QUOTE="MoeMania"][QUOTE="smokeydabear076"][QUOTE="MoeMania"]WOW I can't believe they let there tech guy who has never reviewed a game before here review the game, EA must have pushed hard to get him to review it.MoeMania

Excuses, Excuses.:roll:

I think the tech guy who has never reviewed a game here before is a fairly valid point

This is not his first review, what are you talking about?

What else has he reviewed? If it happens to be his second or third or fourth I think my point is just as valid considering how big this game is, gamespot has always use there big names for big releases, them not doing it here is just odd.

Who cares? It is a good score, why are you disappointed?

Because a review from this guy is really pointless, for big name games you need reviewers who have a substantial track record and aside from this gamespot has delivered just that every big name game. Ocampo should have been the one to review it because then it wouldn't be this contraversy.

Give me a break. This game is great. Its not like its a bad game by any stretch of the imagination. Its not like their giving a game that should've got a 7.0 a 9.0 instead. Are you saying this because the European gaming sites aren't rating this game at a 9/10 or 10/10? So what?

17 years ago

smokeydabear076

22109

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#20 smokeydabear076

Member since 2004 • 22109 Posts

Just because you talk about something such as a review does not mean you care about it.;)

17 years ago

101

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2007 • 101 Posts

[QUOTE="MoeMania"][QUOTE="smokeydabear076"][QUOTE="MoeMania"][QUOTE="smokeydabear076"][QUOTE="MoeMania"][QUOTE="smokeydabear076"][QUOTE="MoeMania"]WOW I can't believe they let there tech guy who has never reviewed a game before here review the game, EA must have pushed hard to get him to review it.gam3r3OOO

Excuses, Excuses.:roll:

I think the tech guy who has never reviewed a game here before is a fairly valid point

This is not his first review, what are you talking about?

What else has he reviewed? If it happens to be his second or third or fourth I think my point is just as valid considering how big this game is, gamespot has always use there big names for big releases, them not doing it here is just odd.

Who cares? It is a good score, why are you disappointed?

Because a review from this guy is really pointless, for big name games you need reviewers who have a substantial track record and aside from this gamespot has delivered just that every big name game. Ocampo should have been the one to review it because then it wouldn't be this contraversy.

Give me a break. This game is great. Its not like its a bad game by any stretch of the imagination. Its not like their giving a game that should've got a 7.0 a 9.0 instead. Are you saying this because the European gaming sites aren't rating this game at a 9/10 or 10/10? So what?

I really do think if Jason Ocampo reviewed the game it would have scored drastically lower. At least .5 lower tbh.

17 years ago

9000

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2003 • 9000 Posts

WOW I can't believe they let there tech guy who has never reviewed a game before here review the game, EA must have pushed hard to get him to review it.MoeMania

Kevin has reviewed well over a dozen games since late last year, including a few RTS titles.

17 years ago

101

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2007 • 101 Posts

[QUOTE="MoeMania"]WOW I can't believe they let there tech guy who has never reviewed a game before here review the game, EA must have pushed hard to get him to review it.AlexN

Kevin has reviewed well over a dozen games since late last year, including a few RTS titles.

Not one of them even a remotely big name game. (No vanugaurd is by no means a big name) Giving a new guy one of the biggest titles of the year is just asinine in my opinion.

17 years ago

9000

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2003 • 9000 Posts

[QUOTE="AlexN"][QUOTE="MoeMania"]WOW I can't believe they let there tech guy who has never reviewed a game before here review the game, EA must have pushed hard to get him to review it.MoeMania

Kevin has reviewed well over a dozen games since late last year, including a few RTS titles.

Not one of them even a remotely big name game. (No vanugaurd is by no means a big name) Giving a new guy one of the biggest titles of the year is just asinine in my opinion.

Games are games, regardless of how "big," they are. If you can't listen to the points a review makes solely because you don't recognize a person's name on the byline, then THAT's asinine.

17 years ago

5418

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

Member since 2006 • 5418 Posts

[QUOTE="AlexN"][QUOTE="MoeMania"]WOW I can't believe they let there tech guy who has never reviewed a game before here review the game, EA must have pushed hard to get him to review it.MoeMania

Kevin has reviewed well over a dozen games since late last year, including a few RTS titles.

Not one of them even a remotely big name game. (No vanugaurd is by no means a big name) Giving a new guy one of the biggest titles of the year is just asinine in my opinion.

You are welcome to use the forum to discuss your opinion about Command & Conquer 3. I am more interested in hearing your opinion of the game, as I assume you have somehow managed to finished it in its entirety, rather than continued personal attacks against my abilities or qualifications.

17 years ago

101

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2007 • 101 Posts

[QUOTE="MoeMania"][QUOTE="AlexN"][QUOTE="MoeMania"]WOW I can't believe they let there tech guy who has never reviewed a game before here review the game, EA must have pushed hard to get him to review it.AlexN

Kevin has reviewed well over a dozen games since late last year, including a few RTS titles.

Not one of them even a remotely big name game. (No vanugaurd is by no means a big name) Giving a new guy one of the biggest titles of the year is just asinine in my opinion.

Games are games, regardless of how "big," they are. If you can't listen to the points a review makes solely because you don't recognize a person's name on the byline, then THAT's asinine.

No not really, people look for the big game reviews to have a familiar name behind them so to just all of a sudden expect us to look at such a big name review done by a no namer without going wtf is pretty insane. Seriously the review might as well be coming from a brand new gaming site I've never heard of as well. You may not like to think so, but the people of this site regard some reviewers on the staff more so then others so giving us someone we don't know is a true wtf moment. EVERYONE was expecting Ocampo to review this game anyway and when he doesn't and a game gets an editorial award from some guy we don't know questions arise.

17 years ago

610

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Member since 2003 • 610 Posts

[QUOTE="MoeMania"][QUOTE="AlexN"][QUOTE="MoeMania"]WOW I can't believe they let there tech guy who has never reviewed a game before here review the game, EA must have pushed hard to get him to review it.Kevin-V

Kevin has reviewed well over a dozen games since late last year, including a few RTS titles.

Not one of them even a remotely big name game. (No vanugaurd is by no means a big name) Giving a new guy one of the biggest titles of the year is just asinine in my opinion.

You are welcome to use the forum to discuss your opinion about Command & Conquer 3. I am more interested in hearing your opinion of the game, as I assume you have somehow managed to finished it in its entirety, rather than continued personal attacks against my abilities or qualifications.

While I don't think it's okay to personally attack you, and I'm sure you are a good guy and competent review, it just seems a bit fishy to us considering -That one of (if not the hugest) PC game to come out in a while isn't reviewed by one of the guys who usually do big releases -That this game is published by uber-mega-giant EA. And I think EA has been known to use underhanded business tactics (don't quote me on this one) That being said, I'm no conspiracy theorist, and I honestly think you reviewed it honestly and with GS' standards, but I just don't think it was a good idea from Gamespot to make this decision, given the opinions of the public.

17 years ago

642

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 19

User Lists: 0

#28 TryDaBeardON

Member since 2004 • 642 Posts

[QUOTE="MoeMania"][QUOTE="AlexN"][QUOTE="MoeMania"]WOW I can't believe they let there tech guy who has never reviewed a game before here review the game, EA must have pushed hard to get him to review it.Kevin-V

Kevin has reviewed well over a dozen games since late last year, including a few RTS titles.

Not one of them even a remotely big name game. (No vanugaurd is by no means a big name) Giving a new guy one of the biggest titles of the year is just asinine in my opinion.

You are welcome to use the forum to discuss your opinion about Command & Conquer 3. I am more interested in hearing your opinion of the game, as I assume you have somehow managed to finished it in its entirety, rather than continued personal attacks against my abilities or qualifications.

Haha, seriously, MoeMania. Shut the hell up. Kasavin's gone. Ocampo had to review Stalker and SC. If sinister undertones of the "sudden" appearance of Kevin VanOrd is the only opening a troll can find, then I'm pleased. CnC turned out to be the game both PC Gamer and Gamespot agree on. Sold.

17 years ago

101

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2007 • 101 Posts

Calling you a no namer is hardly a personal attack Kevin, it's just a fact that your new, have never done a big name review yet with virtually no track record will bring up controversy especially when you list something like building placement as one of the games main cons?! Are you kidding me?

17 years ago

6713

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Member since 2006 • 6713 Posts

They Say 8.4 Hmm. TBH I thought the demo was rather unimpressive, especially in comparison to SC

17 years ago

9866

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

Member since 2003 • 9866 Posts

[QUOTE="Kevin-V"][QUOTE="MoeMania"][QUOTE="AlexN"][QUOTE="MoeMania"]WOW I can't believe they let there tech guy who has never reviewed a game before here review the game, EA must have pushed hard to get him to review it.TryDaBeardON

Kevin has reviewed well over a dozen games since late last year, including a few RTS titles.

Not one of them even a remotely big name game. (No vanugaurd is by no means a big name) Giving a new guy one of the biggest titles of the year is just asinine in my opinion.

You are welcome to use the forum to discuss your opinion about Command & Conquer 3. I am more interested in hearing your opinion of the game, as I assume you have somehow managed to finished it in its entirety, rather than continued personal attacks against my abilities or qualifications.

Haha, seriously, MoeMania. Shut the hell up. Kasavin's gone. Ocampo had to review Stalker and SC. If sinister undertones of the "sudden" appearance of Kevin VanOrd is the only opening a troll can find, then I'm pleased. CnC turned out to be the game both PC Gamer and Gamespot agree on. Sold.

Really 150 voters disagree with you with a 9.5 score average.

17 years ago

101

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2007 • 101 Posts

[QUOTE="Kevin-V"][QUOTE="MoeMania"][QUOTE="AlexN"][QUOTE="MoeMania"]WOW I can't believe they let there tech guy who has never reviewed a game before here review the game, EA must have pushed hard to get him to review it.TryDaBeardON

Kevin has reviewed well over a dozen games since late last year, including a few RTS titles.

Not one of them even a remotely big name game. (No vanugaurd is by no means a big name) Giving a new guy one of the biggest titles of the year is just asinine in my opinion.

You are welcome to use the forum to discuss your opinion about Command & Conquer 3. I am more interested in hearing your opinion of the game, as I assume you have somehow managed to finished it in its entirety, rather than continued personal attacks against my abilities or qualifications.

Haha, seriously, MoeMania. Shut the hell up. Kasavin's gone. Ocampo had to review Stalker and SC. If sinister undertones of the "sudden" appearance of Kevin VanOrd is the only opening a troll can find, then I'm pleased. CnC turned out to be the game both PC Gamer and Gamespot agree on. Sold.

Kevin reviewing Stalker and Ocampo doing CnC 3 would have been much more appropriate good point.

17 years ago

smokeydabear076

22109

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#33 smokeydabear076

Member since 2004 • 22109 Posts

[QUOTE="TryDaBeardON"]
[QUOTE="Kevin-V"][QUOTE="MoeMania"][QUOTE="AlexN"][QUOTE="MoeMania"]WOW I can't believe they let there tech guy who has never reviewed a game before here review the game, EA must have pushed hard to get him to review it.MoeMania

Kevin has reviewed well over a dozen games since late last year, including a few RTS titles.

Not one of them even a remotely big name game. (No vanugaurd is by no means a big name) Giving a new guy one of the biggest titles of the year is just asinine in my opinion.

You are welcome to use the forum to discuss your opinion about Command & Conquer 3. I am more interested in hearing your opinion of the game, as I assume you have somehow managed to finished it in its entirety, rather than continued personal attacks against my abilities or qualifications.

Haha, seriously, MoeMania. Shut the hell up. Kasavin's gone. Ocampo had to review Stalker and SC. If sinister undertones of the "sudden" appearance of Kevin VanOrd is the only opening a troll can find, then I'm pleased. CnC turned out to be the game both PC Gamer and Gamespot agree on. Sold.

Kevin reviewing Stalker and Ocampo doing CnC 3 would have been much more appropriate good point.

What if Ocampo gave C&C 3 the same score? What would you have to say about that?

17 years ago

643

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2006 • 643 Posts

haha, I feel bad for all the haters of this game. Who cares who reviewed it, you have no reason to be pissed besides the fact you are a fanboy for another *unmentioned* game...

I was really looking forward to this game but I got re-addicted to wow so it might be awhile for I pick this one up. I expected this game to honestly get sub 8 but guess not. I would have bought it even with a low score.

17 years ago

101

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2007 • 101 Posts

[QUOTE="MoeMania"][QUOTE="TryDaBeardON"]
[QUOTE="Kevin-V"][QUOTE="MoeMania"][QUOTE="AlexN"][QUOTE="MoeMania"]WOW I can't believe they let there tech guy who has never reviewed a game before here review the game, EA must have pushed hard to get him to review it.smokeydabear076

Kevin has reviewed well over a dozen games since late last year, including a few RTS titles.

Not one of them even a remotely big name game. (No vanugaurd is by no means a big name) Giving a new guy one of the biggest titles of the year is just asinine in my opinion.

You are welcome to use the forum to discuss your opinion about Command & Conquer 3. I am more interested in hearing your opinion of the game, as I assume you have somehow managed to finished it in its entirety, rather than continued personal attacks against my abilities or qualifications.

Haha, seriously, MoeMania. Shut the hell up. Kasavin's gone. Ocampo had to review Stalker and SC. If sinister undertones of the "sudden" appearance of Kevin VanOrd is the only opening a troll can find, then I'm pleased. CnC turned out to be the game both PC Gamer and Gamespot agree on. Sold.

Kevin reviewing Stalker and Ocampo doing CnC 3 would have been much more appropriate good point.

If Ocampo gave C&C 3 the same score, what would you have to say about that?

Obviously, there would be no controversy then duh....and Ocampo saying he stands with Kevin's score wouldn't mean anything for the record, of course he does, no one on the staff would turn against a fellow worker in such a way. It would be the same if Jason reviewed the game and gave it a 7.4 Kevin would stand by him at least online..

17 years ago

40314

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#36 Johnny_Rock

Member since 2002 • 40314 Posts

I could care less whether it gets a 1 or a 10. I've learned that reviewers opinions are just that... opinions. My opinion is better than theirs... it's the one that will decide if I like a game.

17 years ago

smokeydabear076

22109

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#37 smokeydabear076

Member since 2004 • 22109 Posts

I could care less whether it gets a 1 or a 10. I've learned that reviewers opinions are just that... opinions. My opinion is better than theirs... it's the one that will decide if I like a game.Johnny_Rock

Indeed, and I had already made my decision on this game since the first info was released.

17 years ago

20069

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Member since 2002 • 20069 Posts

Calling you a no namer is hardly a personal attack Kevin, it's just a fact that your new, have never done a big name review yet with virtually no track record will bring up controversy especially when you list something like building placement as one of the games main cons?! Are you kidding me?MoeMania

Doesn't change the fact that you are more or less trying to discredit the review on the basis that this is Kevin's first 'major' review. EVERY editor has to start somewhere, and as long as the observations, analysis, and all are valid, and well written, there shouldn't be a problem with the review. Furthermore, attacking the credibility of the review before you've even played the game (assuming that to be the case here), purely because of the name attatched to the review, is simply a weak argument to take.

17 years ago

42748

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 73

User Lists: 0

Member since 2002 • 42748 Posts

They Say 8.4 Hmm. TBH I thought the demo was rather unimpressive, especially in comparison to SC-Karayan-

I thought that was interesting too until I clicked on it. There are only two reviews there, one of them by the infinitely credible source Eurogamer. PC Gamer gave it the same score as Gamespot did.

17 years ago

deactivated-5f768591970d3

1255

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#40 deactivated-5f768591970d3

Member since 2004 • 1255 Posts

are the guys really pissed about this the people who really like supreme commander? Theres really no reason to have a such a rivalry among these games. At this point we can compare demos and reviews since we have not played the retail release of CnC yet. As far as the demos go, I think CnC is a hell of a lot better. Supreme commander was just boring. Anyways, I thought it was a good review, I am sure this dude has to submit his review to be checked out before it gets on the site anyways. Check IGN later to see if they have similar thoughts, though they will prolly rate it .5 higher or so like they usually do.

17 years ago

14495

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2007 • 14495 Posts

Cool! I bought Kane's edition today.

17 years ago

deactivated-5f768591970d3

1255

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#42 deactivated-5f768591970d3

Member since 2004 • 1255 Posts

its on the shelves allready? or u pre ordered?

17 years ago

14495

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2007 • 14495 Posts

Cool, I just bought Kane's edition today.

17 years ago

12901

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Member since 2006 • 12901 Posts

I just downloaded the demo to try it out, a seriously nice game to look at with the gameplay to back it up. Ran the game on ultra at high res with no hiccups, very impressive, seems to run well like Company of Heroes, good to see well optimized games unlike FEAR. And to all those attacking the review, he actually has wrote a good review and all his points, Pros and Cons were very understandable, and I would imagine he is in the best position to judge at this time, good job.

17 years ago

101

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2007 • 101 Posts

[QUOTE="MoeMania"]Calling you a no namer is hardly a personal attack Kevin, it's just a fact that your new, have never done a big name review yet with virtually no track record will bring up controversy especially when you list something like building placement as one of the games main cons?! Are you kidding me?Skylock00

Doesn't change the fact that you are more or less trying to discredit the review on the basis that this is Kevin's first 'major' review. EVERY editor has to start somewhere, and as long as the observations, analysis, and all are valid, and well written, there shouldn't be a problem with the review. Furthermore, attacking the credibility of the review before you've even played the game (assuming that to be the case here), purely because of the name attatched to the review, is simply a weak argument to take.

It's not weak, it's actually a very strong argument from my perspective, reviews given on websites are much more so about the actual reviewer then the name of the site and this reviewer doesn't have a real track record, yes every reviewer has to go up sometime, but after only a dozen reviews he gets arguably the biggest RTS game this decade? Whats next? Some guy with 10 reviews under his belt is going to get to review Halo 3?!

17 years ago

28844

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 0

Member since 2002 • 28844 Posts

Calling you a no namer is hardly a personal attack Kevin, it's just a fact that your new, have never done a big name review yet with virtually no track record will bring up controversy especially when you list something like building placement as one of the games main cons?! Are you kidding me?MoeMania

He's done plenty of big name reviews; most of which were done for a site called Amped IGO. Does that matter? Considering that Gamespot has something to judge his reviewing ability from that, and the experience of reviewing a game for a smaller website isn't really that different. He's also done freelance reviews for Gamespy. But of course, you couldn't be bothered to find out that information about him, would you? No, you had to try to undermine his credibility without actually finding out if there was anything to undermine.

17 years ago

6950

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 17

User Lists: 0

#47 Swiftstrike5

Member since 2005 • 6950 Posts

[QUOTE="Skylock00"][QUOTE="MoeMania"]Calling you a no namer is hardly a personal attack Kevin, it's just a fact that your new, have never done a big name review yet with virtually no track record will bring up controversy especially when you list something like building placement as one of the games main cons?! Are you kidding me?MoeMania

Doesn't change the fact that you are more or less trying to discredit the review on the basis that this is Kevin's first 'major' review. EVERY editor has to start somewhere, and as long as the observations, analysis, and all are valid, and well written, there shouldn't be a problem with the review. Furthermore, attacking the credibility of the review before you've even played the game (assuming that to be the case here), purely because of the name attatched to the review, is simply a weak argument to take.

It's not weak, it's actually a very strong argument from my perspective, reviews given on websites are much more so about the actual reviewer then the name of the site and this reviewer doesn't have a real track record, yes every reviewer has to go up sometime, but after only a dozen reviews he gets arguably the biggest RTS game this decade? Whats next? Some guy with 10 reviews under his belt is going to get to review Halo 3?!

Lol... I was looking at Halo 3 prices and I almost died laughing when I saw it go for 129.99. OMGZ! LOOKZ AT MY NEW HELM!!!! I THINK ILL TEST IT BY SHOOTING MYSELF IN THE HEAD WITH A .50CAL RIFLE! LAWLZ!

17 years ago

28844

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 0

Member since 2002 • 28844 Posts

[QUOTE="Skylock00"][QUOTE="MoeMania"]Calling you a no namer is hardly a personal attack Kevin, it's just a fact that your new, have never done a big name review yet with virtually no track record will bring up controversy especially when you list something like building placement as one of the games main cons?! Are you kidding me?MoeMania

Doesn't change the fact that you are more or less trying to discredit the review on the basis that this is Kevin's first 'major' review. EVERY editor has to start somewhere, and as long as the observations, analysis, and all are valid, and well written, there shouldn't be a problem with the review. Furthermore, attacking the credibility of the review before you've even played the game (assuming that to be the case here), purely because of the name attatched to the review, is simply a weak argument to take.

It's not weak, it's actually a very strong argument from my perspective, reviews given on websites are much more so about the actual reviewer then the name of the site and this reviewer doesn't have a real track record, yes every reviewer has to go up sometime, but after only a dozen reviews he gets arguably the biggest RTS game this decade? Whats next? Some guy with 10 reviews under his belt is going to get to review Halo 3?!

What does the quality of the review have to do with the number of big-name reviews the guy has done? In terms of "deserving" to review games, Kevin has been dedicated to the Gamespot community for years and years, has written a bunch of quality reviews in places where he'd be lucky to get a couple hundred hits, and took a job with Gamespot that doesn't take full advantage of his writing abilities, possibly his greatest natural gift. He deserves this review more than many Gamespot staffers. Of course, it's not really a matter of who deserves it, but who can do a good job. I can confirm that Kevin has had a lot of experience working on reviews for RTS, has a strong writing style, and an analytical mind that allows him to assess a game in full.

17 years ago

2852

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

Member since 2003 • 2852 Posts

Ya totally, i hope that guy who posted a huge topic about how much SupCom is better than C&C gets toasted, he even gone as far to state that SupCom will probably get a perfect 10 score

17 years ago

101

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2007 • 101 Posts

[QUOTE="MoeMania"][QUOTE="Skylock00"][QUOTE="MoeMania"]Calling you a no namer is hardly a personal attack Kevin, it's just a fact that your new, have never done a big name review yet with virtually no track record will bring up controversy especially when you list something like building placement as one of the games main cons?! Are you kidding me?Oilers99

Doesn't change the fact that you are more or less trying to discredit the review on the basis that this is Kevin's first 'major' review. EVERY editor has to start somewhere, and as long as the observations, analysis, and all are valid, and well written, there shouldn't be a problem with the review. Furthermore, attacking the credibility of the review before you've even played the game (assuming that to be the case here), purely because of the name attatched to the review, is simply a weak argument to take.

It's not weak, it's actually a very strong argument from my perspective, reviews given on websites are much more so about the actual reviewer then the name of the site and this reviewer doesn't have a real track record, yes every reviewer has to go up sometime, but after only a dozen reviews he gets arguably the biggest RTS game this decade? Whats next? Some guy with 10 reviews under his belt is going to get to review Halo 3?!

What does the quality of the review have to do with the number of big-name reviews the guy has done? In terms of "deserving" to review games, Kevin has been dedicated to the Gamespot community for years and years, has written a bunch of quality reviews in places where he'd be lucky to get a couple hundred hits, and took a job with Gamespot that doesn't take full advantage of his writing abilities, possibly his greatest natural gift. He deserves this review more than many Gamespot staffers. Of course, it's not really a matter of who deserves it, but who can do a good job. I can confirm that Kevin has had a lot of experience working on reviews for RTS, has a strong writing style, and an analytical mind that allows him to assess a game in full.

I certainly don't blame Kevin for taking it, he or anyone in his position would be stupid not to take it, doesn't change the fact that it's just odd that they gave him such a big name game out of nowhere. Imagine if they did the same with a game like Halo 3 and instead of getting AAA it flopped hard, the whole board site would EXPLODE if that were to happen and a new sites a new site, his past job got him this job it doesn't gain him the time and credibility needed in the eyes of many of the gamespot goers to review such a major game, ampedIGO gets like virtually no traffic even in comparison to smaller game sites let alone gamespot anyway.

17 years ago

98 results
1
2
3

Jump to Top

Please Log In to post.

Use your keyboard!

ESC

Log in to comment