 |
|
Edgar Newt
|
|
I would like to second the Kudos.
Gamespot will continue to get my yearly payment for Gamespot Complete so long as they continue to be brunt with both their criticism and praise.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Minmaster
|
|
So Cal
Nov 2001 time: 21:23
|
|
thnx to gamespot, ill be putting off buying ptw until it is worth my money. if i did buy it, i probably wouldve been furious just like the guy who reviewd it.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
thinkingamer
|
|
Thank goodness! a honest review at last!
Hopefully firaxis will learn from their mistakes, and as a fan i will whine as much i want (partly because i wasted 65 dollars on a Incomplete game [civ3 limited])
Remember, whiners are necesary; if we dont complain, then the company will never improve.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
monkspider
|
 |
banned
Aug 2001 time: 23:23
|
|
This review is terribly flawed because it downplays the level of additions to the one player game. Therefore, it can simply be dismissed out of hand as a poor attempt at reviewing this particular game.
I suggest anyone who is looking for a more accurate review of PTW to head on over to IGN. There you will find a review that much more accurately appraises PTW's features, warts and all.
Last edited by monkspider on 09-11-2002 at 12:09
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Maquiladora
|
|
The review didnt play it down at all. He commented on the addition of the Celts and the Spanish conquistadors but come on, theyre only extra civs, with slightly different stats. You cant dismiss the whole review as pish just because he didnt infinitely laud parts of the game you thought were important. Afterall, how much praise can he give to the addition of some extra civs and tile improvements.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Alex
|
 |
Brasil
Mar 1999 time: 02:23
|
|
Yes, it seems to be a rushed review. I've been following the development of this XP since it was announced, and I know, from reading other players comments, that there are some substantial improvements made to single game. So the reviewer at Gamespot was a bit unfair to the pack, IMO.
On the other hand, PTW was/is billed as a multiplayer expansion pack, so that's what will grab people's attention in the first place. That was the bulk of the Gamespot review.
Now imagine you're a casual gamer, who relies in online reviews to make his/her purchasing decision. The casual gamer did not follow the development of this expansion pack, he doesn't read these forums. He looks at that shiny box which says "multiplayer" and he thinks "hmm, that seems nice. Let me check out what the reviews are saying about this". He directs his browser to Gamespot and... BAM! There goes another customer.
I think the damage is done.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Minmaster
|
|
So Cal
Nov 2001 time: 21:23
|
|
some say it was rushed for the holiday season but there was still a lot of time. they couldve taken few weeks since early november is still early for holiday season.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Comrade Tassadar
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov
The computer civs now seem to wage war much better and it is a good challenge. |
Actually, from what I hea r(especially on higher difficulty levels), they ALWAYS wage war....
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Catt
|
 |
California - SF Bay Area
May 2002 time: 21:23
|
|
I am a big fan of Civ 3 -- I think it's a fabulous game. I bought PTW the day after it was available, but haven't had a lot of time to play (currently playing my third SP game on standard map -- first two games on tiny maps). I haven't tried to play MP, and will rarely, if ever, have the time to play MP (other than PBEM). I am very happy with PTW and the AI improvements -- supposedly just small tweaks, but makes a much better game, IMHO. And I'll probably buy the next expansion (assuming there is one) just as readily as I did PTW.
All that said, the review could almost be called generous, from the reports I've read from posters whose opinions I respect. I don't know if Gamespot gives ratings lower than 5, but if they do, PTW probably got a kind rating. The fact is that PTW was and is designed, marketed and sold as a "multiplayer expansion" (even though I and others didn't buy it for MP). For MP to have all of the problems that it apparently has is just about unforgiveable.
My guess is that the production team bit off more than they could chew with (1) the innovative and numerous MP styles, and (2) the absolutely unmovable, market-driven demands around release dates for the holiday shopping season. A shame, as I'm sure Firaxis had high hopes for at least a gentler landing. Firaxis has proven that they are serious about producing a quality game, even if it takes several patches to do so, and I fully expect them to continue such efforts with PTW. IMHO, they're a great company that will do right by its customers, even if it takes a little time. Nonetheless, to turn a blind eye to the problems with PTW out of the box is to ignore the obvious.
Catt 
|
|
|  |
 |
|
werdhertz
|
|
Canada
Jan 2002 time: 05:23
|
|
WHy are people saying GameSpots review is bias because it didnt comment on SP predominatly? IGN didnt even mention INTERNET MP, only LAN. Are you guys being hypocritcal or what?
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:23. Apolyton Time is 00:23. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|