If I were black hole, I would be pissed

[mysticc]

The game has apparantly been out for days and not a single review by gamespot, ign or gametrailers. I mean, if I owned a game company and spent millions of dollars to make a game, and then it finally released and nobody high-profile put out a review, I would probably raise all hell in the world (not literally, but you know what I mean). They've had to have access to the game and enough time to review it by now. That's a ton of sales/publicity that they are essentially not getting over other titles.

[Mozared]

If you were a black hole, none of us would exist

That said - you sure though? I believe I've seen people talk about and link to several reviews already. Must be one or two high profile sites between them?

What d'you want to know, though?

[Edwardas 3]

Yeah it went almost unnoticed on the biggest gaming forums .
When HoMM 5 was released it had altogether different reception .
Bugs , lack of strategic depth -trademark of Ubisoft .
They ,prolly,would not release 7 -not enough gullible marks

[mysticc]

If you were a black hole, none of us would exist

That said - you sure though? I believe I've seen people talk about and link to several reviews already. Must be one or two high profile sites between them?

What d'you want to know, though?

Like I said, gametrailers, gamespot and ign have all not reviewed it yet. That's basically 90% of the game review traffic (I made the % up, but it's high).

So yes, I'm sure.

I don't think 1up has reviewed it either.

It's just weird because this is supposed to be a fairly big release. The series has been going on for a few decades now. Considering some of the crap they choose to review right away, I'm not sure why they didn't get on top of this.

I wonder if Ubisoft or black hole didn't pay the entry fee to the game sites or something like Valve, Bungie and other companies do.

[Coldy]

The game is made for a niche market, major review sites are in no hurry to review Heroes 6 when they have mainstreams games to review.

Furthermore the game is quite big so it would take some time to review.


OR maybe Ubisoft has asked major review sites to postpone the review until they release a patch for the game that resolves at least a part of the major problems.

[mysticc]

Ahh yes, you're right.

"Sideway: New York", "Jonah Lomu Rugby Challenge", and "Dance Central 2" are absolutely not niche market releases. I got it now. These games needed to be reviewed at once

[Tress]

Well I think it's ok that there is no reviews yet. Heroes isn't call of duty you can run through single player in a day. and check multiplayer for half of day and then write quite objective review based on most aspects of game.
To write a review I think people should at least go through single player campaign and check all races, otherwise it cant be taken seriously. For example game site ag.ru claims that they finish game before writing review(cant say they always strike me as objective, but such policy is must have imo) Otherwise what's the point in review, I know how to check screenshots or demo myself. This is why strategy games take longer than fps or such.

[klaymen]

Otherwise what's the point in review

To satisfy the distributor with the crap he wants to see in the review. Otherwise no new games for you, reviewer.

[Tress]

To satisfy the distributor with the crap he wants to see in the review. Otherwise no new games for you, reviewer.

Unfortunately this is why I stopped buying some game magazines good while ago. Still they managed to get some exclusive interviews, if they put good grades for half baked games.

[Sikon]

Otherwise what's the point in review

To satisfy the distributor with the crap he wants to see in the review. Otherwise no new games for you, reviewer.

This.

I trust independent reviews more. I don't buy magazines myself, mind, but that's mostly because I'm not a gamer (and because I don't see why I should pay for what I can get on the Internet for free).

[Angelspit]

Free stuff on the Internet will cause the end of the world.

[ywhtptgtfo]

Otherwise what's the point in review

To satisfy the distributor with the crap he wants to see in the review. Otherwise no new games for you, reviewer.

This.

I trust independent reviews more. I don't buy magazines myself, mind, but that's mostly because I'm not a gamer (and because I don't see why I should pay for what I can get on the Internet for free).

To support good game studios?

This is like game theory where we can choose to cheat or cooperate. Granted that it's not as simple because we have shabby game developers with shabby products, the industry as a whole would collapse if everyone chooses to pirate and not pay for products they are enjoying.

For what it's worth, I... er... get stuff for free at times while will almost certainly buy a legit copy if I like a particular game, although more ethical people here will still advocate people to pay for everything including terrible games that belong in the trash bin.

[Sikon]

Sigh. Don't jump to conclusions. I meant magazines. I don't see what's the point of buying magazines when there are free reviews on the Internet everywhere.

[sv398]

Personally I think this is Ubisoft's tricks.

There were entries about the reception of the game and it's bugged state disappearing from Wikipedia, posts getting deleted in the forums etc.

It's only logical for Ubisoft to keep a lid on this. Who would want the game to get reviewed as it is now? Can you imagine the score if the reviewer really knows what he is doing instead of galloping on a horse getting pretty screenshots???

This could be a GREAT chapter in the HoMM series. I am really sorry to see the game at this state. I mean seriously...

[magritte2]

If they really thought the game was that bad, I don't think they would have released a demo with so much playable content. But it doesn't feel as if Ubisoft is giving the game much of a push. I didn't even realize it had come out until somebody mentioned it on another gaming forum a few days ago.