 |
|  |
 |
|
Skeeve
|
 |
Washington Township, NJ USA
Mar 2001 time: 00:14
|
|
I'm sorry, but I am Laughin' at Mark McLaughlin!! (The writer of that article in the Wargammer)
Take a look at this quote from his review:
"Mr. Meier will have to pull some real magic out of his hat to surpass Activision's excellent redesign of his initial concept. Call to Power II is clean, crisp, intuitive and addictive - and free from many of the annoying little ticks and tricks that detracted from and led to frustration in previous Civilization and Civilization-style games"
What is he kidding????!!! 
Excellent redesign?
Clean?
Crisp?
Intuitive?
Addictive - I'll give him that one,
but free from many of the annoying little ticks and tricks...???
What about the bugs, the incomplete code, the crashes, the unplayable MP, the bugs, the fix-it-yourself code, did I mention the bugs?! 
OH MY GOSH, DID HE EVEN PLAY THE GAME??!!
He even rates the AI a 4 out of 5!!!
Anyone who plays CTP2 for 2 minutes can figure out that the AI is on life support!! If I had to rate the AI ability on a scale of 1 to 5 I'd rate it a negative two!!
Sure, this guy's a good writer, but I think he submitted an article about the wrong game.
McLaughlin, try playing the game first, before trying to write a review based on the game manual!
------------------
My reach exceeds my grasp!
|
|
|  |
 |
|
PrinceBimz
|
|
I agree with that review, most of it anyway other then the AI.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
bj
|
|
Adelaide, SA, Aust
Jul 2000 time: 05:14
|
|
We too got the game because of a decent review and a full 2 page ad in a magazine, and also disappointed a bit. Keep in mind that reviewers do easily more than one game a week and they (reviewers) usually only get a couple of hours to play each game. I've come to realise that now and wont trust any gaming reviews as much any more, although I still find magazines such as Pc User (uk) a good starting point.
To get the right impression out of ctp2 I reckon a reviewer would need to play it almost a week and they just dont have the time. Im involved with a quake3 mod that has had a few reviews that are simply incorrect because the reviewers would have played them, oh, say 2-3 hours.
It is a long detailed review though, give him that, but my final 'bang for the buck' rating would've been quite below the 5/5 given.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
bj
|
|
Adelaide, SA, Aust
Jul 2000 time: 05:14
|
|
Point taken, i didnt really have a gaming mag on hand to check, but as far as I was aware, even if they did only one game review they still contributed to the rest of the magazine (in different sections...) but that doesnt matter
My god, what a job! I'll take that anyday 
I agree, before even visiting this site I thought some features of ctp2 were much improved (battle, for example) while others werent. Playing sole multiplayer games, even though would take forever even on a local network, would work very well. After a couple of games with computer controlled opponents though, you do see that the AI is poor, along with some other stuff. But we all know that...
Back on the article, Similarly I've seen poor reviews of games that I thought were good. Its a matter of tastes. If reviews from different magazines give similar results, I'd trust it, but one sole review would not entice me to buy/not buy the product any more.
These reviewers though, they spend so much time playing and so many different games and genres, perhaps only they truely know what is a quality game, more than anyone else? ? ?
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
David Murray
|
|
With regards to Wargammer's review:
I think the reviewer must have spent all of his time playing the Alexander scenario. He bangs on about it for most of the review, leading me to think he didn't really try out the "normal" game very much.
I mean, when you think about it, Civ2 is getting quite old, and it too has a great number of bugs. Many of the hardcore Civ fanatics bemoan that the Civ2 AI is too easy to beat, just like they do with CTP2. If a gaming magazine used Civ2 as its benchmark it would be laughed at by the gaming majority. Civ3 will blow everything else away when it comes out but there really isn't much at the moment that surpasses CTP2, for the gaming mags anyway. (Like I said, they can't compare everything to a game that has been around since 1996.)
|
|
|  |
 |
|
bj
|
|
Adelaide, SA, Aust
Jul 2000 time: 05:14
|
|
redstar - yes it definitely needs more such events, but i say more non-military, not non-player. For example, lawyers and corporate branches are in the same class as war units - they have to travel (slowly might i add) to the other cities and perform their action which is equivalent to an attack.
On a similar note, taking railroad it might take me 5 turns to get outside an enemy city. They expel me and immediately Im back in the city. That sucks.
I say there should be two sides to any future civ game, a military based side (represented by the playing map) and a non-military based side.
All actions regarding cities, armies, exploration and such should be carried out on the map with help from the usual dialogues (Army manager, etc)
All other actions and events should be carried out in a method similar to trade in ctp2. You can set your cities to produce these units, but unlike in earlier civs you dont have to move your caravan/freight unit to make a trade route. Similarly, take lawyers for example, you could disperse your lawyers to different cities/civilisations. Just like conversion by a cleric, a symbol would be shown next to the city to indicate enemy lawyers are present in the city, reducing overall production (not *all* production). Your own lawyers, or possibly even military units could be used to get rid of em. Imagine having to pull 5 of your lawyers out of an enemy city to remove (sue) some from your own.
Like you said redstar, you could also have a sporting side of things. If you are at peace with another nation, you should be able to create a sporting 'link' which represents teams travelling to other nations to play sport. This could up commerce.
Of course all of these options should only be available once civilisations are discovered, and say, railroad has been discovered. Meanwhile all military units would retain normal movement rates etc. because moving a troop of machine gunners or a squadron of fighters or tanks takes a lot longer, and much more co-ordination, than it is to send a few lawyers or corporate branches.
Just a (long winded) idea, but if its any good might link over to a civ3 forum.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|