[Oblisk]

Let's stick to the two biggest online reviewers, Gamespot and IGN.

Gamespot will give C&C3: 8.4

IGN will give C&C3: 7.6

[Iceciro]

Oblisk, on Mar 9 2007, 10:45 AM, said:

Let's stick to the two biggest online reviewers, Gamespot and IGN.

Gamespot will give C&C3: 8.4

IGN will give C&C3: 7.6

Psh. I imagine you're nearly right, though they dont deserve it.

Gamespot: 9

IGN: 7.2 (I imagine they'll put a bigger dig on it's terrible, Klepacki-less music.)

Iceciro: 3 (Another bland RTS using the same old formula, just with a shiny coat of paint and a franchise skin stretched over it. Might move to a four, five, or down to a two if I could play the full SP.)

[Zap]

heh okay lets play

I've have made my own thought on this, and in general I think CnC3 will receive ratings between 7-9.

I think Gamespot will give C&C3 a 8.8 out of 10 while it will be 9.2 for IGN, but there is still a little time left before CnC3 is released

[Hiromoon]

Hmm... Probably...

Gamespot: At least an 8

IGN: At least an 8 (Heck, they gave TS an 8, even with Frank's music)

I mean, PC Gamer gave it a 9/10

[Iceciro]

I'm really surprised it got a nine. Nine is one away from 10, and a 10 game should be perfect in every way. Stepping away from the fact that I dont feel it's an evolution of the Tiberian series itself and treating it just as a standalone game...

It just comes off to me as a pretty standard RTS fare. It's not BAD but it's not really that good either. I don't see any evolutions in the genre or new features that make me want to buy it. It doesnt feel memorable, it doesn't feel like something I'll want to play for the next few months - because as soon as something new comes along I'll quit. In fact, it's already overshadowed by SupCom and Company of Heroes. SupCom less so because it wants a dual core system bad, but still it's there.

A game like this, forgettable at best, is a 5. No more, probably less. 5= middle of the road, standard.

This post has been edited by Iceciro: 09 March 2007 - 01:22 PM

[Phlakaton-PG]

mid to high 8s across the board with the exception of a 9+ here and there because EA will have some big marketing ads running in a few magazines.

[Hiromoon]

Iceciro, that's just it. It's opinion based. The reviewers are expressing their opinion, same as you. I've found games that they gave low reviews for quite satisfying... mostly because I had fun playing them.

Check out Game Rankings...
http://www.gamerankings.com/

This post has been edited by Hiromoon: 09 March 2007 - 01:38 PM

[Gray__Fox]

8's and 9's due to some under the table cash transactions...

Quote

I mean, PC Gamer gave it a 9/10

and that I don't get I mean they reviewed a game BEFORE the demo was even released!! that's a cash transaction for a high score if I ever saw one!

[Bittah Commander]

If C&C3 would be reviewed strictly by C&C fans (fans who actually care about the story and have been following it since TD was released), C&C3 would be rated 6 at very most.

[Hiromoon]

Other C&C fans would probably rate it higher then, Bittah...

Anyway, Gray, Game sites and magainzes typically get a preview copy of the game. Otherwise, why was Tiberian Sun rated earlier than it's release date?

Besides, if you're giving a game a review based off the demo, that's already flawed.

[Iceciro]

As a past C&C fan, I think Bittah's rankings were far too high.

If 7 is a passing score, I give C&C3 a 4.

[Bittah Commander]

Actually, I wouldn't rate C&C3 with a 6; I'd give it a 4 myself and a lot of other C&C fans would do the same because of their disappointment. There are of course also a bunch who'd rate C&C3 higher, which is what would raise the rating from a 4 to a 6.

In this topic, out of 5 C&C3 was rated a 1 by 1 person, a 2 by 7 people, a 3 by 8 people, a 4 by 7 people and a 5 by 2 people (the total amount of votes was 25), which means the average rating for C&C3 there was 3.08. That, while not every single member on that forum has been following C&C since the release of TD.
I also never calculated the average rating from that poll until now and very coincidentally it only appeared to be a tad more than 6 (in case you didn't know, 3.08 × 2 = 6.16 ).

[Phlakaton-PG]

You're all ranting over a demo which could be fooling all of you. I do stand by my first comments tho based on what I saw in the demo. This game will be polished like a fine gem when it comes out... trust me.

[Hiromoon]

Well said Phlakaton!

[Phlakaton-PG]

I hope they put that engine to bed after this one too. It's seen so many revisions. They've done well to keep it up to standards of the industry but I smell something far more advanced through the Crytek (or whatever it's called) engine coming.

[TheDude]

Petroglyph: -10

Heh heh. Petroglyph's Payback.

[SnakePlissken]

I think Gamespot will give it 8.7, IGN 8 Me - 2

EA will be spending alot of money getting in the good reviews for this. They need to bring this licence back from the dead at any cost.

[Zaknaril]

I went to EA's site to download this (just to see what it was like even though I was fairly sure I wouldn't be interested) and got it going. Came back and it was at 99% and said "the connection to the host has been terminated" or something to that effect. I've got 12mbs cable. OMG! Needless to say it isn't worth a second effort to me...

[Hiromoon]

Obviously you didn't try hard enough then....

[GamerOpsSteel]

http://pc.ign.com/ar...0/770758p1.html

Quote from ign article:
Because our game is set less than a half-century into the future, GDI units needed to look a bit like the latest real-world military hardware.

so i would imagine the scores something like this

IGN: 7.5
Gamespot pc: 9.0
Gamespy:8.9
X-Play: 4 out of 5 stars
Gametrailers:9.0

This post has been edited by GamerOpsSteel: 09 March 2007 - 08:52 PM