A few days ago, I linked to the Pro-G review of Europa Universalis III – a review that was unsatisfactory for its bare understanding of the game. After Paradox PR applied pressure to the editor, they got a new review with a more positive impression to be a “second opinion”. Then both reviews were averaged to get a final score.
The earlier review is still there, so this isn’t an editorial pull on the scale of 1up’s removal of the original review of Neverwinter Nights 2, but it does demonstrate that somebody recognized that there were problems with the initial opinion – not that the opinion was wrong, but that it was poorly argued and didn’t demonstrate that the reviewer understood the game and the context it was positioned in.
But you know what? The subsequent review isn’t that much better. Almost the entire thing is taken up with describing how you play the game and items pulled from a feature list. How often have you read a review that took up words explaining how often you could auto-save? Or which button you can click to get details on your empire? Even if this was Mr. Kinnebrew’s first Paradox game (which it likely was, given his comparisons to Civ IV and Dominions 3) this sort of manual language is a little out of place.
The response of the Paradox fan community will be interesting. Will they note how this positive review is just as unhelpful an evaluation of the game as the negative review was? Or will they just be happy that the new score is closer to validating the opinion they have already formed?