Day Z

[Fiach]

http://www.nowgamer.com/pc/pc-reviews/1511421/dayz_review.html

Basically at the end, the review is essentially 9/10, they give this score to a game that they describe as frustrating and full of bugs that "wont be fixed in the near future" and badly implemented MP.

How can they justify a 9/10 score for a game with those two major criticisms against it.

You just cant trust reviews any more, which makes sites like OWG more important than ever, where you can get opinions of games from actual gamers.

[Jim di Griz]

And they suggest that ARMA 2 is the follow on from Operation Flashpoint two games from another dev? Either badly worded or just wrong...

Good point though Fiach, not to be trusted. I can only think that the game must have made an overall 'intense' impression on them otherwise, to overlook such problems.

From my own reading about the game, I though the Day Z lot had been patching away quite a lot since the alpha went out; or is that just relative?

I think I'll still be interested by the time this gets a console release.

[Art Blade]

I don't understand how they could rate a game at all that seems to be close to unplayable (compared with what it should have been like). Reminds me of Heroes Over Europe The link leads you to the grandiose game description and further down you will notice I returned the game and got my money back due to a lack of a warranted quality.

[PZ]

Sounds more like they are rating it based on it's potential rather than the reality of what it actually is.  I started playing ArmA2, but quickly tired of the way the voices in the game played out.  For instance, any single sentence sounded like the developers used the voice recordings of half a dozen different people to construct it (sounded really goofy).  However on the positive side I really enjoyed the ability to mod the game, which kept me occupied for a long time.

I agree; I'll take the ratings of an OWG member over anything I'll read on the 'net.  :-X

[Art Blade]

aye  :-D :-X