PC gamer is a little odd in their ratings. I beleive they recently rated Operation: Flashpoint (another great game with a outstanding concept) in the mid to low 70's. They knocked if for being TOO realistic, having clumsy controls, and buggy multiplayer. Granted, the multiplayer that I've seen with it isn't that stable yet, but the heart of the game, the single player campaign, is an EXCELLENT gaming experiance, in fact, I don't think I've played a game as much since the original X-COM. As for clumsy controls, in this reviewers mind, it was a FPS that didn't act like the standard, and therefore was clumsy. I think that he was a bit jaded and upset that he couldn't run and jump like a counterstrike monkey. "...combat is very confusing, and you often get shot without knowing where your attacker is coming from...". Absolutely true. In my opinion, this is an amazing accomplishment for a computer game. It's realistically depicting infantry combat at a glorious level of realism. Once you get the concept of the game (in a way, it's not a "hero" sim, you're not killing a tank with your M-16 no matter how cool you think you are.), everything makes sense. That is EXACTLY why I play the game. It just seemed like this guy missed the point of the game altogether, and in the process decided that the game was a FPS clone that didn't play like a good FPS, and therefore was medicore at best. The bit about being "too realistic" bugged me a lot, and really shook up my opinions on PC gamers reviewers. This reviewer seemed to be rating the game as to how he personally enjoyed it, claiming it was just not fun. That's great, if I reveiwed most sporting events, I'd say they weren't fun either...but that doesn't stop millions of people from attending events. I want to know if the game delivers as promised, not if this guy finds it personally satisfying. The SC has stated several times that some people will want NOTHING to do with this game, seeing that it requires a subsantially deeper investment in time and effort to fully explore. I don't think game reveiwers can spend the required time playing the game to really get the most out of it. I mean come on, if you don't waste money for a cool intro video to stare at, how can it be a good game anymore? :-)
Anyways, I wouldn't rely on PC Gamer to really ante up and give a revolutionary game concept a well thought out, non-mainstream, thorough review the first time around. I guess I'd consider them the MTV of game reviewers. SgtVor
