Games for Window The Official Magazine's crtics= mean

I don't like the mag, especialy that douche Shawn Elliot. GFW is nie magazine for previews and exclusive content, but for reviewing look elsewhere

The mag's critics are total asswipes. Basicly they don't know crap about what's good games and what's not.

It is a little mean I would have given it about 70%, it's really not a great game but it's not 4 out of 10 bad.

GFW tends to rate on a wider scale than most. There's an unwritten 7 to 9 rule on many publications.

This friggin number hysteria needs to END! (Though it's good if the reviewers are professionals).

The issue that some reviewers see 5/10 as average and some see 7/10 as average is a BIG problem for metacritic which averages the scores of all publications and will then get faulty averages!

The biggest problem though is peoples obsession with these damn numbers....

It's an opinion; Don't get so worked up about it.

Here is a handy piece of advice, and you can take it or leave it if you so choose. Next time you suggest that someone is stupid, you may want to check your spelling first. The proper spelling for this sentence would involve "critics" and "something", as well as the proper punctuation of "Windows".

Yes, it's too bad there's not some kind of weighting that takes this into account.

Tom Chick who wrote the article said (on his website) that he was rating the game on a 1-10 scale with 5 being average (and he felt that it was below average).

Personally I am not even sure I would give HGL a 4/10. To me it deserves a 3. I played the late Beta. I even bought the god forsaken thing. I still don't know why I bought it. I guess I had hoped that it might improve. I suppose it still could, but right now it sucks... that is all there is too it. The graphics aren't bad, I like the randomization, but other than that... it is garbage. The game play is boring... there is no fun to be had. I would sell it if I could.

I try to be a honest judge and give mediocre games a 5 or 6. It has to be very good to get an 8, and nearly impeccable to get a 9. HGL is the absolute biggest eyesore of my computer game collection. It is so bad I actually have to turn the box around so that the label is facing away so that I am not shamed of its presence. I have a crappy game called Cuban Missile Crisis. I don't even hide that game. It was free so I suppose that alone drops the shame level. Still I have to hide HGL, god forbid any of my friends see how foolish I am. Probably the most useless $50 I have ever spent in my life.

I wonder how the game could have possibly gotten a 75. Those reviewers must have been on crack or something. Either that or money was involved. I don't doubt anything these days.

Hellgate: London is absolutely horrendous (I would give the demo a 1/10, and the final a game a 4/10). I'm embarrassed to say that the publication I subscribe to gave it an 89%...and then proceeded to give Crysis a 98% the next month. =/

I very much dislike that most critics never give games from bug publishers less then 70%. Only a few indie games manage to drop below that scale. I think the average should be around 50% and not 80% like it is most of the time.

Having a magazine that gives out real marks for games is quite refreshing. I might have to look into that one (but the name itself is very discouraging ... Games for Windows *urgs* I'd prefer "Games that run perfectly fine with Wine or bring a native Linux/OS X client").

And agreed with their judgement about HGL: It's really slightly below average. 40% is fair.

That's why I go to Metacritic. At least you get a good number of different reviews there, plus user-generated stuff too.

Well, as a print magazine, GFW is dead, so those who didn't like it can pee on its metaphorical grave, I suppose. See this link: WWW Link

My opinion, though, is that it was a damn good magazine that had interesting and often rather offbeat interviews and feature stories that you can't find in PC Gamer. Total PC Gaming, a UK mag, is the only similar print magazine I've seen on the market and it's got a pretty hefty price tag for those of us on the wrong side of the Atlantic ($10 per individual issue or about $140 for a subscription).

GFW changed review scales three times over the course of its brief history after it was born from the ashes of the old Computer Gaming World. The editorial staff never did seem to be able to find something they were comfortable with. They tried star ratings, numerical scores, and finally, in the last print issue, an A-F grading scale.

I miss having good quality print magazines devoted to my favorite hobby, but I guess all the money is online now.

Apparently, the GFW reviewers don't give games a free 6 or 7 stars for coming in a box that includes a CD and some marketing materials. Most reviewers on a 1-10 rating system seem to do that. Frankly, it speaks well of the GFW reviewers that they are willing to give a game they consider horrible a horrible rating. Nothing is more pathetic than reading a review where the most positive thing said is "the graphics aren't horrible," and seeing it get 7/10.