Gladius - LucasArts Goes FF Tactics?

Thanks to an anonymous reader for pointing to the GameSpy preview of LucasArts' Gladius, a PS2/GameCube/Xbox "epic tactical RPG that'll have you building an army of gladiators, one axe swing at a time." There's also a new Gladius preview at RPGamer giving a combat overview: ".. [it] takes place on a standard, tactical-RPG square grid, but the graphics do a good job of hiding it... combat is turn-based, but.. using certain attacks on a foe necessitates the use of several action/arcade elements, such as combo attacks strung together by timed button-presses." They also comment on the unexpected genre choice: "American-developed as it may be, Gladius is a tactical RPG that takes its cue from the old favorites, while at the same time trying to expand the genre." Might this title improve on LucasArts' recent efforts?

Comments

Re:Look of Gladius?

[analog_line]

Well, I wouldn't say that they NEVER do anything but praise games. One quick look through IGN, Gamespot, or even Gamespy will show you several games that didn't make the reviewer's grade. However, the problem is that it appears how big the marketing blitz for a game is directly affects the ratings these games are given. I present this as an example of what I mean:

bad game + huge marketing blitz= mediocre rating
same bad game + medium marketing = good rating
same bad game + no or little marketing = Worst Game Ever
mediocre game + huge marketing blitz = Best Game So Far This Year
mediocre game + medium marketing = good rating
mediocre game + no or little marketing = mediocre rating
good game + huge marketing blitz = Game of the Year Candidate
good game + medium marketing = Don't ignore this one
good game + no or little marketing = Sleeper Hit

What this all boils down to is that I don't believe the game review business has degenerated to the point that you cannot get a good review unless you've paid for one. I can't think of more than a handful of instances where I've seen an unambiguously good game get a poor review where the reviewer actually played the game. What appears to be the case so far is that you can improve your game's rating by spending a lot of money "on the reviewers". Interviews, junkets, free games, hell maybe actual cash for an improved rating. All part of the marketing blitz, I would imagine. Try to market the game so people look past the flaws they wouldn't look past otherwise. Like, say, the major flaws in SWG which everyone passes off as minor, I can only imagine because they've had so much marketing money spent on them.