Review: Computer And Video Games.com

Ouch. Just read the article in Computer and Video Games.com. What a devastating review 56/100' date=' isnt it? Strange everyone seems happy with the game, good reviews on other gaming sites and this review...
How did it come? I am bit hesitating about my own impression of E:RT[/quote']

I will post this response to the computer and video games.com review by Mr. Pullin in exactly one week.  I am not able to respond for 7 days as a new member.  Just thought you boys and girls would like to see my take on it.
Wulf

Code: Select all

----- Original Message -----
From: Gary Phillips
To: submissions@computerandvideogames.com
Cc: gphillip@nycap.rr.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2003 1:43 PM
Subject: Enigma: Rising Tide Review by Keith Pullin

I attempted to post these statements in the forum but cannot for a period of one week.
In the meantime I wanted to give you my feedback on Mr. Pullin's review of Enigma:
Rising Tide dated 8 May, 2003.

This is a very inaccurate review.  I preface my remarks by stating that I am NOT related in any way professionally or personally to the publishers or developers of this game.  I am simply an avid wargamer.  I have played E:RT since April 18th, and as an experience wargamer for over 30 years
(board and computer), I have found the game to be extremely challenging and difficult, with great satisfaction in successfully accomplishing a mission or patrol.  Skill development in this game takes time and much practice.  Mr. Pullin's comments, "You relentlessly pound one ship after another until it sinks into the murky depths" proves to me he has NEVER played this game to any extent.  Nobody just sits down at this game and sinks ships like a shooting gallery, which was the direct implication of his quote.  I would LOVE to see Mr. Pullin play this game in person.  Either he is a prodigy of mastering unknown and unpracticed skills, practice necessary to even get to the MIDPOINT of campaigns(Mission 5 in ANY category).  or he is simply not done an honest or credible job in this review.

E:RT is not a perfect game, and the forums are filled with suggestions, discrepancies, etc. etc.
to make the game more realistic, challenging and playable.  Ironically, a vast majority of the comments on the forums suggest the great difficulty players are having in winning campaigns, and the incredible nuances one needs to understand to be successful.

This review standing alone is totally inaccurate, and frankly, I question the motivation of the piece.
In all fairness to the producers and developers of E:RT, you should also invite reviews from
players who have ACTUALLY played this game for some period of time for a balanced analysis.
Those people who have actually played a game are able to discern the veracity and accuracy of comments
and remarks by reviewers, and often agree with a review which has taken some time to understand and play a game.  I find nothing in this review which indicates Mr. Pullin has ever played this game for more
than 5 minutes, and if his remarks are to be believed, he must be the vast exception of genius in gameplay.

Analogously, Chess is also a "relentless pounding" of pawns, knights, bishops and rooks to the unschooled, unsophisticated mind.  As Jack Nicholson said in "Chinatown"..."this job requires some finesse".
So does playing E:RT,. Chess, and writing credible reviews.

I hope in fairness you publish these remarks or similar retorts to Mr. Pullin's pathetic review.

good going
We expect to you to post any replies aswell

I edited you post to use 'CODE TAGs' it looks better

I will post anything I receive as a response.  Thx for the comments
Jesper.

I just read the entire review' date=' and what a load of BS  [/quote']

It's not just related to naval sims' date=' there has been pathetic reviews of military flight sims for decades!
Magazines more often *can't* handle reviews of these two genres and freelance them out to -get this- a retired pilot or the like!!! I mean [b']HELOOOO magazine this is a game, however much of a simulation it tries to present it's NEVER going to recreate the real world...sigh

So we get a Dougy Bader or Bird's eye giving us things like ['the roll rate of the ship is crap and it doesn't burn diesel at the same rate as my old tub did !  ROFLMAO!

I once subscribed to a specialist magazine in the UK called 'Enemy Lock-On' it gave an indepth review of flightsims and upcoming sims -it did this because the reviewer had time to sit playing them for HOURS and HOURS to learn tactics and nuances as it was their SOLE job.

We people that are into the genre of flight sims or naval sims *know* that you learn NOTHING from 1/2 an hours play...

PC Magazines unfortunately are closer to consoles as the years have gone by ;quick-fix junkies and i'm getting older year by year to be their dad!! Oh the horror

PCZone was another that gave a quarter page attempt and slated E:RT -but then they rated Unreal 2 as the best game of the year graphicaly! -that says it all doesn't it.......?

Wulfgar nice opinion

Well written Wulfgar!

Tracer' date=' I happen to be a BIG Unreal fan and I'm quite satisfied with U2. Yes, the graphics ARE astounding, but the gameplay is also very good.
Anyway, I do agree that PCZ slated E:RT. They slated Fighting Steel too, but I bought that. I still read PCZ, always have and always will. 95% of the time they're pretty correct and only occasionally make mistakes.[/quote']