There seems to be a glut of computer game review pages out on the market today. Most seem to be funded by the game companies themselves, with ads for new releases right at the top of the page. In one case, the review I was reading had a commercial for the very game reviewed sitting right at the top of the page. Tell me, how objective can a review be with that kind of pressure?
There is one very good review that comes out of the UK. It is written by gamers themselves, not a hired crew of playtesters. As such, it is very objective, and "rave reviews" are limited to true classics. It can be found at Games Domain .
One shortcoming of these reviews is that they only give the playtester's initial impressions of the game. Even in cases like Games Domain the players are pressured to finish the review as soon as possible in order to get published. What these reviews are lacking is the test of time, the issue of replayability, and this is where my input should come in handy. For example, did the game really interest me at first, and the 180 levels seem like a lifetime of fun, only to have me give up on the game after mission 30?
Civilization 2- A strategy game through the history of the world, from the stone age to the space age.
Steel Panthers and Steel Panthers II Battalion level tank games.
Panzer General and Allied General WWII Strategic level games focusing on Europe and North Africa.
M.A.X. Science Fiction turn based strategy.
Red Alert and Command and Conquer Real Time multiplayer fun fest.
Dungeon Keeper- Sim City meets Diablo.
Total Annihilation- The real time strategy game of the year.
A-10 Cuba!- Fantastic realism wasted on only 12 missions.
Su-27- A bargain bin fighter sim that is still the best on the market.
ATF Gold and USNF 97- Last generation's flight sims dressed in the Emperor's new operating system.