 |
| |
|
|
Triphosphatase
|
|
The reviewer is obviously a rts fan and should not have written the review at all. Let me quote:
quote:
You’ll often need to override or turn this feature off to grow your empire effectively.
|
Did you want the mayors to completely take any responsibility off your hands so all you have to do is move your troops and press End Turn?
quote:
Combat is much too abstract, with units neatly lined up and victory based on mathematical formulas
|
What did you want then? A mini-RTS game where you get to play a short skirmish? (that would be interesting but is too unreasonable)
quote:
The combat screen is utterly uninspiring to watch and could easily be cut from the game with no loss.
|
Your saying that you should not be able to watch how your army lost to your opponents in a 12vs12 battle?
quote:
As you slowly and methodically explore, build, and manage in the early stages of the game, there’s almost no sense of tension or emotional engagement.
|
Your right, its not fun at all if you can't control a laser take in real time. [cough] short attention span [/cough]
quote:
You can literally play for an hour without any drama or conflict as you march your exploring units about the map hoping to stumble across another empire
|
Maybe you shoudn't have picked Gigantic Map/4 Civs in that sole game that you played before you wrote the review.
quote:
The fairly weak AI running the other empires also makes things a bit too easy.
|
Did you play on Easy in the only game you played? Have you actually tried Impossible? (For the people that do not own the game, Impossible is very hard (much better than Civ2/CTP)
quote:
To an extent, this easiness holds true further into the game and on “harder” difficulty settings. Fortunately, the harder settings let you encounter other empires more quickly, particularly if you’ve chosen to play on a small map.
|
Ooo you did try a harder setting. They actually come to you instead of you coming to them...
quote:
In the face of an onslaught of 3D, animated games, the designers of Call to Power II were faced with the hard task of bringing life to what’s essentially a complex board game
|
CTP2 wasn't and never was trying to compete with those games...
quote:
Still, the overall graphic style of the game world and units is bland compared to similar-looking games like Age of Empires II, and animations are minimal and dull, even in combat.
|
Another reviewer that overlooks gameplay over 'pretty' graphics.
quote:
Sound effects and voice responses from your units are equally lifeless
|
This sentence was actually funny. I sure want the units to shout, 'SIR, YES SIR' every time I select them. Another RTS biased opinion.
And the last one:
quote:
It would have been better to reduce or reorient the focus to city building and management or to combat instead of slightly covering those, plus diplomacy, trade, scientific research, and on and on.
|
Did the game overwhelm you too much. Do you really think the developers should make Civ: Science, Civ: Trade, Civ: Diplomacy, Civ: Combat as seperate games?
The review is completely unacceptable. People that do not like CTP2 could see this. How could they call SMAC a 'masterpiece' (different reviewer) and bash CTP2?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Matte979
|
|
Sweden
Nov 2000
time: 05:14
|
|
Have anybody written to them asking for an explaination?
[This message has been edited by Matte979 (edited November 21, 2000).]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Matte979
|
|
Sweden
Nov 2000
time: 05:14
|
|
Explaination why he compares it to AOE II..totaly diffrent game.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Big Dave
|
 |
Texas
Apr 1999
time: 23:14
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui on 11-21-2000 01:47 PM
Oh come on! Simply because he gave a bad review doesn't mean you have to call him 14 years old?! What does that do? Despicable! Call the review bad, ok, but leave the ad hominem attacks aside?
And what do you mean ask them for an explination? They'll say that was their review for the game...
|
Yes Imram, an explanation why an allegedly professional magazine assigned the wrong style of game to this reviewer. This person is obviously familiar with RTS (what a misnomer!) and has no clue about TBS. I mean this is like asking me to review how difficult it is to work on different makes of car and truck engines. I'm not qualified to write that review, get a mechanic. Now if you want me to review computers, CPU's, video cards or something like that, yes, you have the right man. But I'm not competant to review automotive engines, and this person was not competant to review TBS games.
Respectfully,
David
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Yatermie
|
|
N. Vancouver, Denial
Nov 2000
time: 05:14
|
|
Thats the entire problem these days.
We are no longer confined in the graphics department. Things can be made photorealistic in realtime now.
That is not the point of a civ game. I don't care if it was in 320x240, if the gameplay is good, i'll play it.
Before you HAD to have gameplay because the graphics sucked compared to TV and the consoles. Now well.. "lets spend millions on graphics and **** the gameplay, the "massmarket" only wants gameplay"
I'm no programmer, but I think that if people would confine the graphics in a TBS to what can be windowed, and is crisp, clear and gets the job done, we could have the great gameplay that would create another "killer app" and get people back to what I believe is the core of computer games, STRATEGY.
If i want mindless killing, I'll use a console. If i want strategy, I'll use my computer. I suppose.. well.. HOMM for gameboy.. the end is near.. sigh..
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Monkey
|
|
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Apr 1999
time: 05:14
|
|
Hey guys guess what?? I wrote to IGN about the appaling state of the CTP2 review last nite and they HAVE appeared to change the review. They seem to have removed the reference to AOK and have rewrote parts of the review. Read it again now. It's definitely different. Unfortunately the 6.0 still stands though.
Also if anyone has the original copy of the review in their browser cache or have saved it, try comparing it to the old one.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Monkey
|
|
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Apr 1999
time: 05:14
|
|
ARrrrgggh quoted instead of editing, sorry
[This message has been edited by Monkey (edited November 21, 2000).]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kautilya
|
|
St Louis, MO
Feb 2000
time: 23:14
|
|
http://pc.ign.com/reviews/14118.html
Another gem from the review ( the revised one I think):
"The combat animations are a little tedious and,
given that you can't really interact with the battle, a little
pointless as well."
Actually you can retreat during the battle using the battle view screen.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MisterV
|
|
Yatermie:
One thing, I agree with position on the IGN review, but I object to your ending hit about "if I want mindless killing, I'll use a console."
I really don't like the constant console bashing from PC users. I for one use often and enjoy both mediums. Sorry to sort of change the subject here, but this is a very ignorant statement. Haven't you ever played a Final Fantasy game? Or how about Xenogears? That PSX game had a deeper and more meaningful theme and story than ANY pc game I know of. Consoles are better for sports games too, if you are into that kind of thing. I agree that PC is better for strategy, but to classify console games as mindless killing for stupid people is ignorant, and doesn't really demonstrate that you have any idea what you are talking about.
Sorry to change the subject, but I just wanted to comment on that.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
actually I think you guys are biased. Yes they should compare this game to RTS games in terms of how fun it is. Their review is compared to ALL other games. It is designed to convince people to buy one game over another no matter what genre it is. It should even be compared to sports games in terms of how fun it is. But I agree their should be a separate paragraph in the review specifically addressing TBS issues. And I think this separate subsection should be reviewed by a person who likes the genre, or at least doesn't not like it.
But yes this game should be compared to games of other genres because that is their system as is systems of all other online or printed magazines. I just don't like the reviewing system as is, and should be modified. I think reviews should be written by at least 4 people that like different kinds of games. Say sports, sims, strategy, and action games. This would be the only fair way to review any one game. Or at the very least have 2 different strategy reviewers review this game. One RTS and one TBS. This way a prospective RTS gamer that is considering buying this game gets 2 different points of view. And TBS gamers that want to buy it also get 2 different points of view. And the scores should be averaged.
[This message has been edited by Dissident Aggressor (edited November 23, 2000).]
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Judge
|
|
Game reviews and any other reviews for that matter are supposed to be impartial and unbiased. For example it would not be at all fair to compare say Star Wars with The Silence of the Lambs especially if the reviewers comments related to how much "fun" the reviewer had watching each. On the other hand it might be relevant to the review to say that "Science fiction fans might prefer Star Wars"
All reviewers are bound to be a little biased but they should never be ignorant. Many IGN readers will base their purchase choice on a review. A biased review really serves no purpose at all especially if the reviewer doesn't actually like the genre. A good games reviewer should, ideally, have some liking and awareness of all PC game types.
Personally I like most "good" games - Tony Hawk Pro skater 2 is a great game and offers some light relief from Call to Power II or Red Alert but it would be ridiculous for me to say in a review that Tony Hawks was better or vica versa!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
but don't you see it as unfair to have only a TBS fan review the game? What if someone who likes RTS game is interested in buying it. He reads some biased review from a TBS fan and buys the game and doesn't like it. Of course this works both ways as in this case.
Yeah having sports fan review it does seem dumb. But at the very least both a person who likes TBS and one that like RTS should review the game. This way someone who like starcraft relate to the RTS reviewers comments more. And people like us could relate to the TBS reviewer and seriously consider his negative comments.
[This message has been edited by Dissident Aggressor (edited November 24, 2000).]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Judge
|
|
Dissident Aggressor:
My whole point hinges around the fact that reviews should be unbiased. It is perfectly possible for a reviewer to point out that TBS style games are not what everyone will like but then neither are RTS, puzzle or Arcade games.
However the point is valid in that someone who hasn't played the genre before needs to know, even if the game is the best RTS, TBS, etc. ever, if in fact they would like the genre itself....
It is quite simple for a reviewer to describe the style of game without actually expressing an opinion on whether it he or she actually liked it and then go on to compare the game with other games in its genre.
Personally I think that to qualify as a reviewer of computer games you should like most or all game types. Reviewers who don't like certain genres should simply refuse to review games belonging those genres as their opinion would be too biased.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Grier
|
|
of Sheffield, England
Feb 2000
time: 05:14
|
|
I only read the edited version, and though the review was harsh, it seems like a valid opinion. Whenever you think about getting a game you should look for more than one review anyway, just to make sure that you have a range of opinions.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:14.
Apolyton Time is 00:14. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
21-11-2000 12:12
|