Finally a GameSpot Review: 8/10

[Angelspit]

It took a long while, but GameSpot have finally published their <a href="/http://www.gamespot.com/might-and-magic ... 19">review of Might and Magic: Heroes VI</a>, giving it a score of <b>8 out of 10</b>:



<i>"Whether you're embarking on an epic contest with friends or adventuring through the dozens and dozens of hours of campaigns, Might & Magic Heroes VI is very entertaining. The appeal of Heroes games has always come from the three pillars of exploration, development, and combat, and the action is in fine form here. Beautiful new lands and creatures provide a welcoming world to explore, streamlined development makes it a pleasure to build up your towns and heroes, and tactically rich combat fills your fights with potential. Though the name may have changed, the allure is the same, and Might & Magic Heroes VI is bound to entice both veterans and newcomers alike."</i>



The score might be lower than the previous game of the series (III had 9.1, IV had a surprising 8.8 and V had 8.2), but the positive bottom line comes as a blessing for Ubisoft/Black Hole after several review with mixed feelings. GameSpot overlooked the technical issues experienced by many players and focused mostly on the gameplay.

If you would like to take a look at the original page visit this link:
https://www.celestialheavens.com/1322796784

[ywhtptgtfo]

Guess the Gamespot reviewers never played in Skirmish mode.

[Crayno]

Any review that fails to mention the huge number of bugs disqualifies itself

[MMXAlamar]

Congrats Heroes VI! 8/10 is a very good review, considering the extensive competition in the video game market these days.
Edited on Fri, Dec 02 2011, 10:23 by MMXAlamar

[maltz]

V was also a feast of bug at the beginning. But it still managed to patch up and eventually deliver two expansions. Maybe VI will walk on the same path, but maybe it is my illusion - I find the patching speed of VI a little slower than V.

[Avonu]

HoMM V had "monthly patching proccess" and while 1st patch was indeed released in on month after game, next ones were released longer and longer and they not really fixed much. The "patch" which fixed most of HoMM V was ToE.
So far HoMM VI has 1 patch at release date and second (hot fix) few days later (for laptops and cursor issues). Now we are waiting 2 months for second patch and I really hope this time it will fix most of bugs including all of major ones.

[Coldy]

It's a very very shallow review.....

[ywhtptgtfo]

>It's a very very shallow review....



Yeah..................... I wonder if game companies buy off reviewers these days. I know that Kane & Lynch game's company tried to.



But then again... it takes a while to actually realize how awful this game is at the current stage. I was at this "oh shiny!" stage for at least 1.5 weeks before I got bitter.

[Khelavaster]

No mention of the hundreds of bugs, skirmish maps or the state of the AI... in a strategy game! Moreover, the review sounds as amateur and inept as those from those unknown sites which gave the game an instant thumbs up on the basis that there's combat and it's pretty.

[CloudRiderX]

Great to hear.

[ThunderTitan]

>>I wonder if game companies buy off reviewers these days.<<

There's no need to wonder, they do...

>>IV had a surprising 8.8 <<

Maybe they played the game after the 1.03 patch and got lucky with the rest of the bugs...

[CloudRiderX]

If they gave V a 8.2, the possibility of a buyout might definitely be real, considering how V was garbage before the two expansions.



And don't even try comparing it to IV when it first came out; IV was a ****ing blast even though you could only play it for two hours before the memory leak caused it to crash.

[Tale]

It's somewhat frustrating to read all of these posts. I mean, all these accusations of reviewers being paid and not having actually played the game. I could see such accusations with one or two or even ten overtly provable false reviews, but Metacritic shows 46 reviews, and a good 30 of them give Heroes 6 a score of 80 or higher. 35 critics gave it an 70 or higher. Either UbiSoft has a ton of money laying around from all the theoretical non-sales of this game that they use specifically to bribe every professional game reviewing company in the world, of whom only a fourth have the moral wherewithal to resist the temptation of a few dollars in trade for their reputation and therefore livelihood, or... you know, maybe the game is actually good despite the numerous bugs?



...



...



Nah, that can't possibly be it. Clearly, it's far more likely that the entire game review industry is corrupt. I probably am too. Only 100 hours in and I'm still enjoying it. Oh well, I hope I at least sold my integrity for something nice, like a DRM-free copy of Assassin's Creed Revelations.

[Metathron]

But not even a mention of bugs and the intrusive DRM? These might not bother him personally, but they would surely factor into at least some potential customers' decision of whether or not to buy the game; and he's a reviewer, so if his integrity has not been compromised it's certainly part of his job description to give the game thorough coverage and be forthcoming about its flaws.

[hellegennes]

The obvious truth is that the reviewer played for a few hours, to get the review done, rather than been paid to forget the problems HVI has. He has clearly not played Heroes before, either, or he wouldn't call "coal" the ore resource. Why would coal be needed in building, is anybody's guess.

[CloudRiderX]

Or maybe the reviewer didn't have any issues with his copy of the game. If you read the forums, the type of problem varies from person to person. Some people can't play it, while others have no issues at all.

[Kalah]

I think you overestimate the powers of the boards ... the "majority" of players probably don't come here that much; many players have been playing without major issues and without the numbers to back it up, such claims can easily be chopped up to personal frustrations.

[theGryphon]

Given the points they awarded the previous installments, 8/10 is too low for MMH VI. Should've been more like 8.4-8.5.

[CloudRiderX]

@Kalah



Exactly.

[Angelspit]

Given the points they awarded the previous installments, 8/10 is too low for MMH VI. Should've been more like 8.4-8.5.

Integers should be enough for review scores. Once people get into decimals, it's an open invitation to nitpick about some meaningless details.