note: This is The Column, a part of Apolyton where primarily Markos and Dan write whatever we want :). Well, not just the two of us. The Column is open to everyone. If you feel like writing submit your article to civ2@gamestats.com

PREVIOUS ARTICLES

#45 NOTES FROM THE UNDERMUNITY What could make or break the Civ community must be addressed now, Resimark insists. #46 DAY IN THE LIFE OF DANQ Dan gets what he deserves... his own dedicated column! :) COLUMN ARCHIVE

Before I start I must make some apologies: First, my grammar sux! Second my spelling sux ever worse!!
Now, my personal feelings about Call to Power and SMAC...

Really this belongs in a whole different column, but since after I write this people are going to start calling me SMAC hater I better make a few points clear. I think they are equal games, except for one BIG thing, the Public Works System. In SMAC you have to flood the map with those dumb transform terrain units if you want to win, and that drives me crazy! The other thing I really like about Call to Power is the unit stacks, it is much more realistic, there is no way one cannon can take down nine phalanxes. If SMAC had the public works system it would deserve the 98%, but since it doesn't I feel it only deserves a 96%. As for Call to Power, PC Gamer really screwed up this review, I really think it deserves a higher score (the rest of this column will explain why). PC Gamer is the top dog in computer gameing magazines, when you want to know if a game is worth your money that is where you turn; I can't believe they screwed this one up so bad!

"[The great graphics] come at a hefty price...I was eventually forced to turn every bit of optional detail off".

On my system, (K6 233mhz, 32mb ram) which is below what they (PC Gamer) recommend I have extra graphic options turned on, because I found they don't slow the game play down that much. Activision has said that some of the options were meant to be used on high end systems. So basically CtP is having points taken off their review because they put in extra options for higher end systems.

"That the designers failed in this approach [talking about the central interface] is evident in the rather confusing supplementary pop-up menus needed for such essential functions as trade and research".

This makes no sense, I wonder if he even thought about what he was saying. Activision was able to add everything that you do every turn to their central interface, so that you only need pop-ups about once every 10 turns. He is saying that because they didn't add things that you do every 10 turns or so that the interface is a failure. The truth is that Call to Power has fewer pop-ups than any other TBS, in all the others you still have to use a pop-up for production and to change where your citizens are working.

I won't quote it here because it is too long but the reviewer then goes on to say how Call to Power takes away all your micromanagment that civers love so much. First, You can still do all the micro management if you want; CtP simply will do it for you if you want it to. Second, I read the forums where people suggested ideas for CtP and most of them said that they wanted to do LESS micromanagment.

"Huge swaths of game time involve nothing more than hitting the end-turn key and watching your units move...for the most part the first 2000 years is boredom".

Has this guy never placed a TBS before? For the first 2000 years of Civ2 you do the same thing.

"There are no more...throne rooms".

I guess he wasn't very good or he would remember the lost city screen popping up.

"New messages appear as small icons on the left of the screen, which are too easy to ignore. They're also awkward to use and provide little useful information, yet they are the prime tool for covering the state of the game".

With that said I still think it is a LOT better than hitting enter (or clicking OK) 50,000 times at the start of each turn.

"There's no movement takeback".

Well duh! I'll move my settler up one, if that's not a good place for a city then I'll just undo that move and move him down one or over one.

"Units take the straightest rather than the best path".

That simply is NOT TRUE.

"CivII worked hard to eliminate the "phalanx brings down a bomber" encounters of the first game, only to have Call to power put the all right back".

This was done for better game play, and since Activision released a rules.txt (or whatever the file name is) for realistic game play so no one has anything to complain about.

"Lows:....No autosave".

One word: Patch.

I hope this has shown you how off based some of the complaints against CtP have been. Now I understand the game is not perfect, but it is better that 65% and I am insulted by that rating. There are many other things said in the article that do not make sense but I am writing a column not a book. So, I plead to you when you are reading game reviews, CtP in particular, don't just look at the precent or number of stars at the end but actually read the review and ask yourself if what they are saying even makes sense.

The opinions expressed on this page do not necessarily reflect those of Apolyton CS or GameStats. They are just the personal opinions of the writer.