The glorified blog that is Gamespot just gave a rating of 9.5 to a PC game for the first time in 3 years. To provide a reference, here are the other games that have gotten a rating of 9.5 or higher according to Gamespot:
| Rating | Game | Snarky Commentary |
|---|---|---|
| 9.6 | Diablo | OK hard to argue here, this game was excellent |
| 9.5 | World of Warcraft | I give it a 9.5 for MMOs, but I don't think it is fair to compare a game with a hefty subscription cost to other non-subscription-based games |
| 9.5 | Unreal Tournament | I was always more into Doom/Quake than UT, but I can understand how others loved it. The fact that it was multi-player only limits it to me. |
| 9.5 | Command & Conquer: Red Alert | This one rocked - very fun solo and multiplayer |
| 9.5 | Grand Prix II | A warning in the review notes you need a Pentium 133 to play at 640x480. |
Take a good look at that list, now notice what is missing. Where is Half-Life or Quake? Where is a game from Bioware? Where is Battlefield 2, Grand Theft Auto, Warcraft or Starcraft? They all got rated less than these.
So what game has joined this illustrious group? A game I'd barely heard of titled World in Conflict from Swedish developer Massive Entertainment who had previously developed the Ground Control series of RTS games. You can check out the review on the site, but suffice it to say it is glowing. Can this game (which is also apparently available for the XBox 360) possibly hold a candle to some of the other great games it is rated above? We'll have to see! If you've played the game, let us know.
Posted by scottsh at Thursday October 04, 2007 - 6:13 PM | TrackBack (0) | Category: PC Games | © 2007 Gaming Signal
Might I point out that at the time Diablo was an unknown quantity as well? Up to the release of that title, Blizzard was only known for Warcraft and Warcraft 2. And I dare say were still seen as the new guy on the block...
I have World in Conflict, and I have played a bit of the tutorial when I get bored with my butt whooping in 2142. It is pretty and the game plays pretty tight. It covers ground that is real with modern units but fictional at the same time. It also offers a RTS feel without resource collection. Is it a 9.5? I am not sure, but then again I would only play games I liked. It is also receiving some amount of love due to the ad machine, but Massive did a wonderful job on Ground Control. They also got almost nothing since that game was released by Sierra around the time of Homeworld which was one heck of a title at the time.
Try the demo before you throw stones about a game you have not heard much about - I knew this game was coming for a while now and I was pretty excited about it. The 360 version was just pushed back to next year though...
Posted by Tim on Thursday October 04, 2007 at 8:47 PM
I'm more commenting on the strange fact of the Gamespot review history. Gran Prix II was a better game for its time than Half-Life or Warcraft 3 was? Really?
And then to further contrast - is World in Conflict a better game than Knights of the Old Republic or GTA: Vice City? They also claim it is the best game this year - so that means it is better than Bioshock and Burning Crusade? I didn't love either of those two, but that's still a bold claim. As an aside, World in Conflict joins Burning Crusade and GalCiv 2: Dark Avatar as the only games this year to get above a 9 rating. That seems to be high praise.
Posted by scottsh on Thursday October 04, 2007 at 10:21 PM
GTA3 got a 9.6 plus Editor's Choice, Starcraft got a 9.1 and Editor's Choice and I'm sure if they could go back and kick it up they would. Battlefield 2 got a 9.3 and Editor's Choice. I could go on but my point is that these are all in what I consider the same ballpark. What's a few tenths amongst friends? I don't mean to sound like a Gamespot apologist but I happen to rely on them quite a bit. I find their reviews to be close if not spot on. (insert rimshot)
Posted by Dean on Friday October 05, 2007 at 6:37 AM
Actually, the PC version of GTA3 got 9.3 (see here) but your point is valid.
Maybe I am making too much of the few tenths of a point, but as you can see from that list I linked, it does end up creating a ranking that begs discussion! 
Posted by scottsh on Friday October 05, 2007 at 7:30 AM
I think its very hard to grab a bunch of reviews over a period of years and try to make comparisons at this level. The issue can be compounded by immature writers and personal tastes. Maybe the person who reviewed Grand Prix II really liked racing games and at the time this was the pinnacle of racing titles on the PC - who knows. I also think games like Bioshock and Knights of the Old Republic were seen as primarily console titles which were ported back to the PC and therefore suffer for that.
Posted by Tim on Friday October 05, 2007 at 9:00 PM