retired_dego72

Nice typing by me! </BLOCKQUOTE>

Typo of the year lol.

dinahdoll

Heh, Thunderbolt's review is a bit extreme.

But it's good to see the reviewers have recognised this year's is "thin on new features", although still a top quality game.

Also, go down to the user-reviews, and read the one by J.F (or someone, I've closed the page now - it's the one with a rating of 4). What a mug.

retired_genelia

this games horrible.

retired_nivea

Cant remember what PC Zone gave, about 92% I think.

Id have to say that now we are a fair amount of time after review Id have to knock that down to about 86%.

I still love the game and am really enjoying it buts its not quite as good as FM07 for me.

A 2nd patch may change this.....

fishda

At the moment -&gt; not at all
With 8.0.2 (if it fix the majors bug) -&gt; definitely

retired_slowmotion fitness

Why? What are your reasons for saying it's horrible? Currently, your opinion means absolutely nothing without backing up your statement with reasons. I'm guessing you're not a law student.

retired_ella67

PC Magazines hardly ever mention bugs in their reviews. I sometimes wonder if they play the same games as the rest of us. And some games and publishers are guaranteed 90%+ scores every time. These days I only trust EDGE and GAMEStm.

kepners

Either way, when you review a game you still have to review it as an individual game and not what it was year ago etc as long as there are enough changes and improvements ( debatable, but I'm just happy get new copy each year ).

Does FM08 deserve high scores? Matter of taste again, but I very much find it does. I'm not letting few bugs destroy my overall enjoyment of a game that otherwise is so great.

Not many games have as long lifespan as football manager does. Some MMORPG's and certain strategy games does...but for single player game, FM got incredibly long lifespan and I can certainly see myself playing FM08 untill the release of FM '09 ( unless I get to much into FMlive )

retired_pschnapps13

Dunno if they're still doing it, but back in the day (90's), mags almost never reviewed the retail version of the game. In a mad rush to be the first to review a blockbuster, they'd review a pre-release version.

Any bugs they found, they were told, "it'll be fixed in the final release". It meant that a lot of mags gave very untrustworthy reviews of games, because they weren't:
a) reviewing what the punters were getting
b) glossing over blatant flaws because they were told they'd all be fixed by the final release.

If it is indeed still the case, there you have it - they've not been playing the same game and/or have been pacified by SI telling them the bugs won't be there when it hits the shelves. Of course, things may have changed...