Naysayers have been owned (C&C3 Review)

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.

TryDaBeardON

Greg K. left? Wow, when did this happen, I missed that news.

Anyhow, I think it was a well-done review, and I for one intend to buy the game based on his review and my previous interest in the game.

For the record, don't judge his review until you have played through the game yourself guys. For all we know, Kevin could be one of GS's best reviewers, and judging from this review, he's off to a good start (at least in terms of writing ability, i haven't played the game yet).

[QUOTE="Oilers99"] 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.MoeMania

Out of nowhere? Again, the guy has had plenty of experience reviewing RTS games, and I don't see how this would be any more "out of nowhere" than if he reviewed his first big-name title six months or six years from now. If anything, this is the right big-name title for him to review; in a genre and on a platform that he's had a lot of experience with.

Your Halo 3 comparison doesn't really hold any water. Fanboy reaction doesn't really have anything to do with what's the right or wrong thing to do. In fact, you could probably lead a good life by acting in opposite manner to fanboyism. The boards would explode if Halo 3 was given anything less than a nine, but that would happen regardless of who reviewed it. Remember what happened with Twilight Princess? Gerstmann had reviewed all previous 3D Zelda games and many other high-profile games.

And what does credibility in the eyes of Gamespot members matter? If he's capable, he's capable. If someone questions his credentials, then they should do some research to find out. If you're worried Kevin is not capable of reviewing this game, then read some of his past reviews, and determine it on your own, instead of openly criticizing his pedigree without knowing what the pedigree is.

And again, what fanboys say has nothing to do with what's ethical, smart or real.

It seems you all failed to mention that PC Gamer also gave this a 90% score. I guess you should be digging that up and seeing how new that reviewer is as well, right?

C&C is getting high range reviews, so attacking this one doesn't make sense, it's not like he's thinking drastically different than other sources.

The people complaining about the reviewer here are complaining about his previous experience, and I've yet to see a single complaint about the actual review besides the score. The review is well-written and justified, what's the problem? He hasn't reviewed any big games before? Whaaa? That doesn't even make sense. So then, how is he supposed to be able to review big games if no matter what "big game" he reviews, you'll thrash him for not reviewing one before. He has to have a first "big game" review, that's how the world works, you start somewhere and go from there. I think his first "big game" review was excellent, like I said, he justified everything and was able to be critical and unbiased as much as possible.

Your arguments are in frustration that the editor-in-chief doesn't review every single popular game that comes through the doors at GS. They have staff for a reason and I'm sure GS wouldn't have had this particular reviewer review this game had he not been qualified.

I personally hope they have another "no-name" (because GS staff are such huge celebrities) review something like Halo 3 or some other "uber-huge game" because I'm pretty sure GS does it just to see you guys squirm ;)

EDIT: I'd also like to remind everyone that Zelda Twilight Princess didn't get AAA status and it was reviewed by a veteren at GameSpot, now if it was a rookie, that's the first thing you guys would say, it's all because he has no experience, in that case, GS reviewed Zelda much lower than other outlets, saying a critic messes with a games score because of their review history is ridiculous, you review a game by what you think of the game, you don't go "hmm, well I have given a lot of RTSs low scores, okay, this one gets a 9!" No, it's not like that.

all i gotta say is, i'm glad that EALA pulled this off successufully. Red Alert 3 next, please :D

Out of nowhere? Again, the guy has had plenty of experience reviewing RTS games, and I don't see how this would be any more "out of nowhere" than if he reviewed his first big-name title six months or six years from now. If anything, this is the right big-name title for him to review; in a genre and on a platform that he's had a lot of experience with.

The situation would be drastically different if he gradually went up to bigger to bigger titles over time, but thats not what has occured at all.

Your Halo 3 comparison doesn't really hold any water. Fanboy reaction doesn't really have anything to do with what's the right or wrong thing to do. In fact, you could probably lead a good life by acting in opposite manner to fanboyism. The boards would explode if Halo 3 was given anything less than a nine, but that would happen regardless of who reviewed it. Remember what happened with Twilight Princess? Gerstmann had reviewed all previous 3D Zelda games and many other high-profile games.


Actually it does, yes the reaction would be huge no matter who did it, but I believe the reaction would be far greater it it was from someone new like this.

And what does credibility in the eyes of Gamespot members matter? If he's capable, he's capable. If someone questions his credentials, then they should do some research to find out. If you're worried Kevin is not capable of reviewing this game, then read some of his past reviews, and determine it on your own, instead of openly criticizing his pedigree without knowing what the pedigree is.

Your opinion of the people who visit the site is significant as they are the very thing that keeps the site going, I know his credentials, you've made them very clear buddy and I still hold my view so whats your point? Your not going to change my mind just like I'm not going to change yours.

This guy was not qualified for such a big name game in my opinion, you can cry, call me a fanboy and an idiot all night long, it's not going to make your point any better.

And skylok I have the game, though I sure didn't pay for it. 

And skylok I have the game, though I sure didn't pay for it. 

MoeMania

[QUOTE="MoeMania"]

And skylok I have the game, though I sure didn't pay for it.

Skylock00

We're not trying to change your stance on the matter. We're simply making clear that your conclusion, and basis for reaching that conclusion, is asinine, and isn't a reasonable way to discredit the review, with the pereception also being that you haven't played through the game yet to be able to make a valid counter point to Kevin's review.

So ya even if you completely ignore the name of the reviewer it simply doesn't read like your standard gamespot review.

So ya even if you completely ignore the name of the reviewer it simply doesn't read like your standard gamespot review. 

MoeMania

[QUOTE="MoeMania"]

So ya even if you completely ignore the name of the reviewer it simply doesn't read like your standard gamespot review.

Skylock00

[QUOTE="Skylock00"][QUOTE="MoeMania"]

And skylok I have the game, though I sure didn't pay for it.

MoeMania

We're not trying to change your stance on the matter. We're simply making clear that your conclusion, and basis for reaching that conclusion, is asinine, and isn't a reasonable way to discredit the review, with the pereception also being that you haven't played through the game yet to be able to make a valid counter point to Kevin's review.

So ya even if you completely ignore the name of the reviewer it simply doesn't read like your standard gamespot review. 

No it's not, I'd do the same thing if you were the one who reviewed it sky and rightfully so :) MoeMania

[QUOTE="MoeMania"][QUOTE="Skylock00"][QUOTE="MoeMania"]

And skylok I have the game, though I sure didn't pay for it.

Unstoppable_1

We're not trying to change your stance on the matter. We're simply making clear that your conclusion, and basis for reaching that conclusion, is asinine, and isn't a reasonable way to discredit the review, with the pereception also being that you haven't played through the game yet to be able to make a valid counter point to Kevin's review.

So ya even if you completely ignore the name of the reviewer it simply doesn't read like your standard gamespot review.

:)

To sky 

Maybe alone if that was the only point I made, maybe your point would be more valid sky, but in combination with the fact that he his neglected giving the game proper criticism it only enforces my point that this guy clearly wasn't ready for a big game review in my opinion.

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.MoeMania

The very fact that Gamespot gave Kevin this review as you say "out of nowhere" is an indicator not only of their trust, but also of their desire to provide honest and balanced reviews, without "political" considerations. You keep bringing up Halo 3 and the horror you feel at the very thought of it "flopping," but the fact is - if it stinks it deserves to flop, just as CnC3 would deserve to flop if it stunk, and one's track record doing "big reviews" should have nothing to do with it. If anything, the lack of such track record enables one to think it through calmly and really concentrate on weighing the game's pros and cons, without being bothered by prospects of having guys like you cry "Ooo, he gave CnC 3 9.0 after giving SC 8.7 - he must be just a CnC fanboy!"

PC Gamer and Gamespot are two sources I base my purchases most on. "Track record" of fair and balanced reviews of either one speaks highly of their selection process. I have no reason not to trust their choice of reviewers, and neither do you, but some of us seem to like slandering people whose opinions we don't like, even though we, ourselves, neither have an objective opinion of our own, nor do we have any reason to suspect foul play. To each its own, I suppose. You can continue chanting your silly slogans. I, meanwhile, will buy the game having my expectations confirmed by Kevin's review. Chances are I'll enjoy the hell out of it.

[QUOTE="Skylock00"][QUOTE="MoeMania"]

And skylok I have the game, though I sure didn't pay for it.

MoeMania

We're not trying to change your stance on the matter. We're simply making clear that your conclusion, and basis for reaching that conclusion, is asinine, and isn't a reasonable way to discredit the review, with the pereception also being that you haven't played through the game yet to be able to make a valid counter point to Kevin's review.

So ya even if you completely ignore the name of the reviewer it simply doesn't read like your standard gamespot review. 

Look I have been here for 4 years, the CnC 3 review reads fine compared to other gamespot reviews I've read and probably reads better than the early gamespot reviews, and there has been lots of odder quirks than an experienced reviewer doing his first 'big' review for that particular company.

How long have you been around Moe?

[QUOTE="Unstoppable_1"][QUOTE="MoeMania"][QUOTE="Skylock00"][QUOTE="MoeMania"]

And skylok I have the game, though I sure didn't pay for it.

MoeMania

We're not trying to change your stance on the matter. We're simply making clear that your conclusion, and basis for reaching that conclusion, is asinine, and isn't a reasonable way to discredit the review, with the pereception also being that you haven't played through the game yet to be able to make a valid counter point to Kevin's review.

So ya even if you completely ignore the name of the reviewer it simply doesn't read like your standard gamespot review.

:)

To sky 

Maybe alone if that was the only point I made, maybe your point would be more valid sky, but in combination with the fact that he his neglected giving the game proper criticism it only enforces my point that this guy clearly wasn't ready for a big game review in my opinion.

    But I don't understand why people are making such a big deal who reviewed it... Odiviouslly his score/review isn't as off to make gamespot to completely disagree. He just doesn't write it with out his editors and superiors taking a look at it making subtle changes them selves..

    WHO CARES IF HE HASN'T written reviews before.. If he is unbias, has experience in RTS's and Pc games in general isn't that all the creditials you need other then being able to write clear and concisely ina  well formated article?   Honestly its a opinion people take it as it is..  This is why I think gamespot needs a 5 star system.. %'s are trying to add a exact science ot something that is not a exact science, but a opinion that varies from one person to the next..  In the end if it were that way most likely Supreme Commander and CnC 3 would get 4.5/5..  This would not cause the bickering they are getting, because in the end this is a generalization.. You will not be able to notice a difference between a 40% anda  45% game, both will suck.. Nor will you notice a difference in the scores between CnC 3 and Supreme Commander..

[QUOTE="MoeMania"][QUOTE="Skylock00"][QUOTE="MoeMania"]

And skylok I have the game, though I sure didn't pay for it.

mikemil828

We're not trying to change your stance on the matter. We're simply making clear that your conclusion, and basis for reaching that conclusion, is asinine, and isn't a reasonable way to discredit the review, with the pereception also being that you haven't played through the game yet to be able to make a valid counter point to Kevin's review.

So ya even if you completely ignore the name of the reviewer it simply doesn't read like your standard gamespot review.

Look I have been here for 4 years, the CnC 3 review reads fine compared to other gamespot reviews I've read and probably reads better than the early gamespot reviews, and there has been lots of odder quirks than an experienced reviewer doing his first 'big' review for that particular company.

How long have you been around Moe?

[QUOTE="MoeMania"] 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.TryDaBeardON

The very fact that Gamespot gave Kevin this review as you say "out of nowhere" is an indicator not only of their trust, but also of their desire to provide honest and balanced reviews, without "political" considerations. You keep bringing up Halo 3 and the horror you feel at the very thought of it "flopping," but the fact is - if it stinks it deserves to flop, just as CnC3 would deserve to flop if it stunk, and one's track record doing "big reviews" should have nothing to do with it. If anything, the lack of such track record enables one to think it through calmly and really concentrate on weighing the game's pros and cons, without being bothered by prospects of having guys like you cry "Ooo, he gave CnC 3 9.0 after giving SC 8.7 - he must be just a CnC fanboy!"

PC Gamer and Gamespot are two sources I base my purchases most on. "Track record" of fair and balanced reviews of either one speaks highly of their selection process. I have no reason not to trust their choice of reviewers, and neither do you, but some of us seem to like slandering people whose opinions we don't like, even though we, ourselves, neither have an objective opinion of our own, nor do we have any reason to suspect foul play. To each its own, I suppose. You can continue chanting your silly slogans. I, meanwhile, will buy the game having my expectations confirmed by Kevin's review. Chances are I'll enjoy the hell out of it.

The review is fine.  It's obviously a great game. And I'm one who has been playing Supreme Commander non-stop enjoying it.  I'm just not getting why people get into this game rively thing. Supreme Commander is fun, C&C 3 is fun.  They are far different games and even fighting over which one is 'better' is ridiculous.  Different people like different things. Regardless, playing any game on Gamespot that is rated over a 4 has to be 10 times more than whining about games and bashing games you don't like. 

GregK works at EALA now I'm sure he had an idea of who was going to score the game the highest seeing he knows everyone at Gamespot.MoeMania

[QUOTE="mikemil828"][QUOTE="MoeMania"][QUOTE="Skylock00"][QUOTE="MoeMania"]

And skylok I have the game, though I sure didn't pay for it.

MoeMania

We're not trying to change your stance on the matter. We're simply making clear that your conclusion, and basis for reaching that conclusion, is asinine, and isn't a reasonable way to discredit the review, with the pereception also being that you haven't played through the game yet to be able to make a valid counter point to Kevin's review.

So ya even if you completely ignore the name of the reviewer it simply doesn't read like your standard gamespot review.

Look I have been here for 4 years, the CnC 3 review reads fine compared to other gamespot reviews I've read and probably reads better than the early gamespot reviews, and there has been lots of odder quirks than an experienced reviewer doing his first 'big' review for that particular company.

How long have you been around Moe?

[QUOTE="MoeMania"] 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.TryDaBeardON

The very fact that Gamespot gave Kevin this review as you say "out of nowhere" is an indicator not only of their trust, but also of their desire to provide honest and balanced reviews, without "political" considerations. You keep bringing up Halo 3 and the horror you feel at the very thought of it "flopping," but the fact is - if it stinks it deserves to flop, just as CnC3 would deserve to flop if it stunk, and one's track record doing "big reviews" should have nothing to do with it. If anything, the lack of such track record enables one to think it through calmly and really concentrate on weighing the game's pros and cons, without being bothered by prospects of having guys like you cry "Ooo, he gave CnC 3 9.0 after giving SC 8.7 - he must be just a CnC fanboy!"

PC Gamer and Gamespot are two sources I base my purchases most on. "Track record" of fair and balanced reviews of either one speaks highly of their selection process. I have no reason not to trust their choice of reviewers, and neither do you, but some of us seem to like slandering people whose opinions we don't like, even though we, ourselves, neither have an objective opinion of our own, nor do we have any reason to suspect foul play. To each its own, I suppose. You can continue chanting your silly slogans. I, meanwhile, will buy the game having my expectations confirmed by Kevin's review. Chances are I'll enjoy the hell out of it.

i was going to write a long-winded post, but f it.

moe, you're a jackass.  please, write your own review AFTER you've thoroughly played the game.  i'd LOVE to read the intelligent review you'll write up.

[QUOTE="MoeMania"]GregK works at EALA now I'm sure he had an idea of who was going to score the game the highest seeing he knows everyone at Gamespot.Skylock00

And hardly mexican, thats just a fact of life in the gaming industry that occurs. 

The influence of the PR people is felt on every site out there whether sites want to admit it or not the PR people are hired for a reason and there main job is getting the best candidate from any give site/magazine to review the game.

MoeMania

sigh...  i just looked at your profile.

4.6 for cc3 and 10.0 for supcom.  :roll: :roll: :roll:  oww...  my eyes...

please do elaborate on those ratings.

[QUOTE="Skylock00"][QUOTE="MoeMania"]GregK works at EALA now I'm sure he had an idea of who was going to score the game the highest seeing he knows everyone at Gamespot.MoeMania

And hardly mexican, thats just a fact of life in the gaming industry that occurs. 

   Seeing as you have no evidence what so ever I consider this a "tin-foil hat" conspiracy theory..  EA already gives money to gamespot solely for covering their game as well as the advertisements, not for rigging reviews.  The only evidence I have seen is Beth's bully strategy on recent games like Oblivion.. Wish I saved it some guy had literally 8 pages on the practices that Oblivion has done with citations from reliable sources..

i was going to write a long-winded post, but f it.

moe, you're a jackass.  please, write your own review AFTER you've thoroughly played the game.  i'd LOVE to read the intelligent review you'll write up.

sj420

sigh...  i just looked at your profile.

4.6 for cc3 and 10.0 for supcom.  :roll: :roll: :roll:  oww...  my eyes...

please do elaborate on those ratings.

sj420

[QUOTE="Skylock00"][QUOTE="MoeMania"]GregK works at EALA now I'm sure he had an idea of who was going to score the game the highest seeing he knows everyone at Gamespot.MoeMania

And hardly mexican, thats just a fact of life in the gaming industry that occurs. 

[QUOTE="MoeMania"]

[QUOTE="Skylock00"][QUOTE="MoeMania"]GregK works at EALA now I'm sure he had an idea of who was going to score the game the highest seeing he knows everyone at Gamespot.sSubZerOo

And hardly mexican, thats just a fact of life in the gaming industry that occurs.

Seeing as you have no evidence what so ever I consider this a "tin-foil hat" conspiracy theory.. EA already gives money to gamespot solely for covering their game as well as the advertisements, not for rigging reviews. The only evidence I have seen is Beth's bully strategy on recent games like Oblivion.. Wish I saved it some guy had literally 8 pages on the practices that Oblivion has done with citations from reliable sources..

It would have been nice to see some criticism like this in the review, like in the IGN one.

"It's also a little sad that once the largest units on each side come out, earlier types of units are basically made obsolete. Once you have the money for Mammoth Tanks, there's no reason to create any other ground units."

My experience with the demo suggests that is a fact and something that I definitely think should have been pointed out. Hell that right there should have put in the 8's! 

the only thing I'm saying is in general PR people have influence on who from what site reviews their games.MoeMania

[QUOTE="MoeMania"]tthe only thing I'm saying is in general PR people have influence on who from what site reviews their games.Skylock00

It would have been nice to see some criticism like this in the review, like in the IGN one.

 

"It's also a little sad that once the largest units on each side come out, earlier types of units are basically made obsolete. Once you have the money for Mammoth Tanks, there's no reason to create any other ground units."

 

My experience with the demo suggests that is a fact and something that I definitely think should have been pointed out. Hell that right there should have put in the 8's!

ARGSmith

Somehow I get the impression that Kevin reviewing the game is not the problem - he's just an excuse. If he had rated the game even one tenth of a point lower than Supreme Commander there would be rejoicing instead of most of this current thread.

[QUOTE="MoeMania"] I stand by it, I never accused anyone at GS of it directly just merely pointed out that it's a fact of life in the game industry and I stand by that from talks I have had with numerous people in the game industry.Skylock00

Maybe so DJ, that doesn't erase the fact that the game wasn't even close to properly criticised, Gamespot is usually by far the harshest when it comes to criticism while right now thus far they are by far the most lenient of the reviews released thus far.

It'd be silly to base judgements on a game by only reading one review. Compare points made by multiple reviews and make a decision based on that. If you feel that a review was not fair or biased in any way, don't consider it.

Simple as that.

the naysayers have been owned because someone has an opinion different to them? why is kevin vanord's opinion more valid than anyone else's? because he works for a website?

command and conquer 3 is a great game if you want to play the same game you've been playing for a decade already with a new lick of paint, or if you're a c&c virgin and want a fast paced rts with a focus on crazy fun rather than hardcore damage per second parsing and other numbercrunching

saying it's a great game is valid, and saying it's an awful game is equally as validm both perspectives carry a lot of weight, but it depends on the personal preference of the player - but to say that gamespot's opinion is somehow the word of law is just absurd - i do not trust gamespot for most things, they gave oblivion 9.3! they gave gears of war 9.6! they gave other games other scores! 

for example, i've been playing c&c for a long, long time - i'm sick of it, and i don't want to play it any more... because kevin vanord says i should, am i somehow wrong?

please 

[QUOTE="MoeMania"] I stand by it, I never accused anyone at GS of it directly just merely pointed out that it's a fact of life in the game industry and I stand by that from talks I have had with numerous people in the game industry.Skylock00

Can someone fill me in here...Greg Kasavin was involved in making CnC3??!!?

Maybe so, maybe not, bottom line though since I'm just speculating as are you really, no one can win this. I know for a fact though, that the criticism displayed in the review was completely unprofessional and lacking, seriously I almost felt as if EA's PR team wrote the review (No that is not an accusation buddy :/ )

 

Maybe so DJ, that doesn't erase the fact that the game wasn't even close to properly criticised, Gamespot is usually by far the harshest when it comes to criticism while right now thus far they are by far the most lenient of the reviews released thus far.

MoeMania

Here's the bottom line: SC - 10.0 CnC3 - 4.6 In your profile. Are you really trying to debate ethics and professionalism after those scores? Did you by any chance neglect to apply the golden rule of "proper critisism" to one of those games? My guess is you neglected to apply it to both of them. Not only you're anything BUT unbiased, you're also trying to discredit a reviewer ONLY because he scored CnC above SC, while banking on the popular "hatred" of all things EA. You can dance around it, deny it, ignore it, say the same thing over and over again, but a troll hiding behind clever rhetoric is still a troll, and your rhetoric isn't even that clever.