PC.IGN Review!

[Imran Siddiqui]

Another bad one:
http://pc.ign.com/reviews/14118.html

6.0 (basically what CtP got).

[Monkey]

Rats Imran, you beat me to it!!!!

[EdCase]

He compared it to AOK???? oh dear how sad. He called it leisurely. I smell a "twitch" gamer.But yea the reference to board game is right with the exception of the over complex dig. Go back to Quake arena or Unreal Tournament (incidentally I own both and enjoy both immensely when the mood takes me) and leave the thinking game to those with a brain and an attention span greater than a goldfish i say

[PrinceBimz]

Exactly...this is why I am opening a game review site (www.gamersescape.com) I am personally tired of inaccurate reviews and we see it all the time. These people don't play the games but they write reviews!These people DON'T do it for fun the do it to get a paycheck. I have been seeing this for a long time now so I am going to correct it by myself and with my team.

When my site is up and running it will be the best and have the most honest and accurate reviews on the net. My staff on my site will be volunteers that feel the same as I do, FED UP! They are not getting paid and neither am I, this is being done to help put an end to false or favored reviews. Strategy games such as CTP2 as well as others is a hobby of mine and many, many others and we as gamers will not sit back and watch these people speak weak and false opinions about our games and destroy our hobby. So don't worry, when the Gamer's Escape team writes a review you can count on it and you can bet CTP2 will get what it deserves there I promise that. Why? BECAUSE WE PLAY THE DAMN GAME FOR MANY MANY HOURS AND WILL KNOW EXACTLY WHAT WE ARE WRITING ABOUT! Enough said.

oh god....

quote: Combat is much too abstract, with units neatly lined up and victory based on mathematical formulas.

1) usually armies ARE lined up in battles
2) did he prefer a victory based on randomness??

quote: Diplomacy is one of the more interesting aspects of the game, letting you adopt a wide range of stances and tones. You can make or break alliances, demand a city or gold in tribute, offer a new technology, forge pollution reduction treaties, and so on

that's it. 45 words for the diplomacy system!


btw, here are the paragraphs of the review
- introduction
- descpription of what a player does in the first part of the game
- mayors
- combat(this one like an unoconvetional unit, the cyber ninja, no mention of the others)
- gameplay. quick mention that the ai is easy(on which settings?)
- diplomacy and trade
- pollution(why is unusual? it existed in ctp1)
- graphics(comparison with aok???)
- conclusion

[This message has been edited by MarkG (edited November 21, 2000).]

[Maxxes]

quote: 2) did he prefer a victory based on randomness??

No, I suppose he prefers a 'command and conquor' like interface.

Obviously, this guy doesn't like this kind of games, i've no problem with that but they shouldn't write reviews about these games.

[Kautilya]

Yeah obviously this fellow hasn't played too many TBS games. The waffle about the "abstract" combat system is a tell-tale sign. In fact it seems to me that the combat model is richer because of the different classes of units; flanking, range etc. And it's certainly not more abstract than in Civ 2.

Another tell-tale sign is that there is no reference to any previous TBS game not even CTP-1. And of course that bizzare comparison to AOK.

Anyway I have realized from these two reviews that these quick reviews are all but useless for complex strategy games where you need about a hundred hours to really explore the game and especially gauge the quality of the AI. I think Civ2 and SMAC were to some extent over-hyped with reviewers overlooking the abysmal AI's and the tedious micromanagement. OTOH CTP2 appears to be getting a raw deal for some reason.

[Michael_101]

Unfortunately, it seems as if the norm of the new millenium is going to continue to be:

If it isn't RTS, it is boring! (

There are several RTS that I do like (AOK being among them), but overall, I am a TBS gamer. RTS games will never be able to accurately simulate an empire builder type of game (seriously, is it realistic to expect a ruler to be able to cover all of the nuasances of a galactic empire AND be present in the pilot seat of his super space destroyer all in maybe a one hour time allotment? :P )

Anyways, until the trend towards fast-and-flash (my term for the constant string of graphics heavy RTS games) ebbs, and thought and patience returns to the majority of computer gamers in the industry, this will probably be the way of things to come.

Oops...better get off that soap box

[Provost Harrison]

Yes, although it may be a good or poor game, we don't want to know how it compares to an RTS, we want to know how it stands up within the genre, how good it is to play and for that I feel a TBS man is needed. This bloke was too interested in how it stands compared to AoE and it is not a comparison that can be fairly made; they are two different types of game. I am still none the wiser about the game and would like to see a little more expert review.

Both types of game have their place, and this reviewer seems to lack the credentials to be able to assess TBS...

[Apollon]

Anyone else thinks the guy who wrote that crap has to be a major league *******?! I, like many others, haven't had the opportunity to play CTP2 yet (hasn't come to Europe yet). But I still think it's a great sequel, of what I've read and what I'm expecting I'm hunting the game each day, (almost), and waiting for the damn release

And as the news item says, over 30 % voted for excellent, and 15% voted for good, only 10% voted for bad (7%) and poor (3%). Waiting for the game, I'm torturing myself by reading these forums and getting even more enthrilled about the game
That's all for now, and all I have to say to the IGN reviewer, Up yours damn puff!

Apollon
67651077

(no it hasn't )
[This message has been edited by Apollon (edited November 21, 2000).]

[Dark Renown]

quote: Originally posted by Maxxes on 11-21-2000 01:49 AM 2) did he prefer a victory based on randomness?? No, I suppose he prefers a 'command and conquor' like interface.

The C&C games still use maths to work out the damage, in fact all games are is(?) very complex maths.

As for that review comparing a tbs to a rts is like saying "Nice shoes, but they wont keep your head warm like my hat"

the readers review have slipped to 8.3%
[This message has been edited by Dark Renown (edited November 21, 2000).]

[Ubersandwich]

I agree with you Dark Renown, he seems to be comparing apples and oranges. I found it funny that his "weaknesses" with the game were what i considers its strengths. And as for his assertion "but it would've have been nice to see some meaningful additions to the game", he seems to refute that by mentioning the combat system, a system that is quite different than the colonizaton/civilization/SMAC model that has endeared itself to Civers for years now.

[Michael_101]

How do you know he doesn't wear his shoe on his head?


Seriously, TBS games are becoming an endangered animal. Compared to many RTS formats, they probably require too much work and investment for a company to give serious consideration into producing. In addition, it is much easier for any Joe Shmoe game reviewer to evaluate an RTS game (in fact several) with less time investment than he would have to if he were to review accurately a game like CTP2. Study the format in several gaming magazines today. Usually the review is done on a single page, and then if the pictures and the graphics were cut out it wouldn't amount to much. The usual exception to this are the much hyped "megahits" that get several pages - of which I have never seen get a poor review. (Diablo II was fun, but seriously, isn't it just more of Diablo with a few extras added in?)

The trend of the industry (and its market) towards favoring the RTS over TBS isn't going to be changed easily. It will take hard work by fans of TBS games to help keep the genre alive. A good first step might be for the fans of TBS games to respond to inaccurate or poor reviews as done by this reviewer. If enough of us informed him of our feelings (AND surely as fans of games like civ2 we are capable of pounding out something with a little more quality than say, "Your review sux" or "You don't know what you are talking about!" -- write with style!!!), just maybe the people he works for will take notice and invest a little bit more time in their reviews of games like CTP2.

I am not saying he or anyone else has to like the game. I am just asking that apples be compared to apples, not to gorillas.

...well if I am not careful, I am going to become known for this soapbox"""




------------------
What do you mean? Ohioans are too a civilization!

[CBF1985]

I thought the review was very negitive. I would rate it much higher. All people polls show it much higher. About them hyping it and then dumbing it they did the same thing with call to power 1 giving it a 4. I think it is mucg better and ign should take another look at the game.

i tried to find other reviews by the ign reviewer(Scott Osborne) and google got me two reviews on gamespot!
these are: grand prix 3 and superbike 2001.....

[Provost Harrison]

Say no more Markos

[Yoleus]

I do not know why, but it fits 8)

quote: Originally posted by Provost Harrison on 11-22-2000 07:39 AM Say no more Markos

i dont know, perhaps he has done strategy reviews too....

unfortunately ign does not have a seach feature and the gamespot search gives wrong results....

correction: ign has a search feature. the only thing that came up when i search by the reviewer's name was the ctp2 preview. his first one on ign??

[Atahualpa]

and (hopefully) his last one

[Sarxis]

Without being too hypercritical of the review, I think they hit the nail right on the head.

Without being too hypercritical of the game, I think it is pretty good.