Talk:PC Gamer: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
Basicallydan (talk | contribs) Seperate UK & US |
||
Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
[[User:Jcos|Jcos]] 15:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC) |
[[User:Jcos|Jcos]] 15:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC) |
||
== Seperate UK & US == |
|||
I think the UK edition should be the one which PC Gamer directs to, and PC Gamer US should be a seperate article. |
Revision as of 23:23, 11 June 2006
This article has no use whatsoever, it needs to either be created, or simply deleted, while PC Gamer UK may well be deserving of an article, the said article is worthless. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.155.185.160 (talk • contribs) 17:04, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
- I would certainly debate it being "useless"; it does, after all, provide some sort of history of the magazine, and some information about it. It just needs expanding, which I may do if I can find the time.
- I'm not entirely sure about the review scores section though. As far as I'm aware, PC Gamer UK has never awarded more than 96% (Half-Life and a few other titles) to any game. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but for now I'm clarifying that in the article. (I'm assuming the 98% is correct for the US version.)
Fishdonuts 09:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
In the US edition, the lowest score awarded was 4% (Mad Dog McCree 2). Ironically, before Mad Dog McCree 2, the lowest score awarded was for its predecessor, Mad Dog McCree (awarded 8%).
Ironic? This is more coincidental, isn't it? Ironic would be if the original Mad Dog Mcree was the highest rated game in PC Gamer
Seperate UK & US
I think the UK edition should be the one which PC Gamer directs to, and PC Gamer US should be a seperate article.