Age Of Empires DS *Official* Thread

I'm basing my opinion on past HGM reviews I've read.

EDIT: And we're talking about a significant disparity here. But hey, I could be wrong. None of the rankings provided are by incredibly reliable sources. However, if my choices are trusting HGM or the aggregate of other sites...

The scariest disparity in HGM versus other sources for me was Castlevania: Curse of Darkness. HGM gave it a 4.5/5 overall, including a 5/5 from Sardius. Accoring to GameRankings, the average score for this game was 73.3% on PS2 and 75.3% on Xbox. Those averages are too high, making the 4.5/5 just amazing. Symphony of the Night wasn't a 5/5. How the fuck could someone give CoD that score?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PBMax

That IGN review was painful to read. Do they even have editors?

---

Notice how every review has a bunch of sentences like "Now the game has finally hit the come out in stores".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yoshi

The scariest disparity in HGM versus other sources for me was Castlevania: Curse of Darkness. HGM gave it a 4.5/5 overall, including a 5/5 from Sardius. Accoring to GameRankings, the average score for this game was 73.3% on PS2 and 75.3% on Xbox. Those averages are too high, making the 4.5/5 just amazing. Symphony of the Night wasn't a 5/5. How the fuck could someone give CoD that score?

---

According to Gamerankings, Play also gave it the same level of scoring as HGM, so it isn't just an isolated incident.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeremy

According to Gamerankings, Play also gave it the same level of scoring as HGM, so it isn't just an isolated incident.

---

Congratulations. You've matched Halverson-like quality levels.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yoshi

Congratulations. You've matched Halverson-like quality levels.

---

Actually, I enjoy reading Halverson's writing. He's the closest thing to GameFan these days. But the review scores and preferences are ... different.

I read EGM, Play and HGM. So shoot me.

As for review scores, I often use metacritic.com's average. I don't know why everyone prefers gamerankings. Nicer interface at metacritic.

HGM's review of the game is fine. It states what's good about the game, what's bad about the game, and doesn't go on and on about meaningless details for ages. The review concludes that it's a good game, but not a great one due to some interface issues and things that make it appears rushed (sound suddenly dropping out, etc) and gives it a score that reflects this.

I'd say it was actually a pretty good review, and it's nice that the game wasn't scored on a scale of 70-100 like most other places. I have no qualms about jumping on HGM, but this doesn't deserve it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeremy

According to Gamerankings, Play also gave it the same level of scoring as HGM, so it isn't just an isolated incident.

---

Did Halverson review it? His review scores range from 8.5 to 10.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpoDaddy

8.2 is pretty low considering "There is no portable strategy game that does a better job of forcing strong economy, solid town design, and serious tactics: An unparalleled achievement." Maybe he plays strat games for the battle animations?

---

Well, I can say for sure that I won't be rushing out to buy it because:

Quote:

---

The only hope we have for the next version in regards to gameplay modes would be Nintendo WiFi support or a map editor. It would be great to form guilds, share maps, and play friends online.

---

It may be great for what it is but online portable would be ten times as awesome.

SoK, I'm not sure who did the Play review.