Gamespot review!!!!!

[Monkey]

Only got a 7.2 on gamespot

Read about it here.
http://www.zdnet.com/gamespot/storie...656251,00.html

on combat:

quote: The combat system is still hampered by the fact that you have no control over unit placement on the tactical screen, and that you are essentially reduced to being a spectator as the battle unfolds. Watching valuable units die because of seemingly random map placement can be frustrating

RANDOM??????

on unconvetional units:

quote: As before, there is such a wide variety of threats inherent in the endgame that it's impossible to defend against every one of them

which means: "i'm used to conventional war game and i'm too bored/unable to find new strategies for these new units"


message of the day: dont trust a review with a rating

the more i read....

quote: However, removing the unit support considerations makes it far easier to wage war,

cost for unit support is still there...

quote: and with the 12-unit army system, Call to Power II (like its predecessor) replaces city micromanagement with army micromanagement

meanwhile, managing units and settlers in civ2 and smac was no micromanagment at all....

[Mad-Kat]

I don't get why people see Lawyer and Branches as so powerful. They are weak and easy to defeat. They just give a nice, different style of warfare. Too many narrow minded dumbasses just don't have the imagination to play a strategy game if it's not 100% focused on pure reality.
How anyone can put down the streamlining of CTP is beyond me. At the end of a Civ II game you had so many settlers, caravans and units going hither and thither that you could go insane trying to remember where they where all going and what they were doing. It was a nightmare. Any one that finds that fun I have just 3 letters for you. OCD! Get help now.
CTP II seems very nicely balanced from what I've played so far. I even think mod-ing this game could hurt. So what if the tech tree isn't 100% true to history! If it's for the good of game balance, let fascism come before democracy. Gameplay is more important than trying to cram EVERY tech and EVERY historical time period and unit that ever existed.

This brief rant was brought to you by the sucky reviewers at Gamespot
[This message has been edited by Mad-Kat (edited November 20, 2000).]

quote: Originally posted by Mad-Kat on 11-20-2000 08:09 PM This brief rant was brought to you by the sucky reviewers at Gamespot

let it all out Mad-Kat


i think i'm going to postpone the preview a couple more days. i'm afraid i'm going to write something as idiotic as this
(actually, i'm hooked on a diety game. i've got 4 small allied to me and a huge war with the major english one )


[This message has been edited by MarkG (edited November 20, 2000).]

[Mad-Kat]

Ok, I just went to Gamespot and gave CTP II a good rating. Everyone who likes CTP II get over to Gamespot give CTP II the review it deserves from the people who actually play it.
[This message has been edited by Mad-Kat (edited November 20, 2000).]

[John-SJ]

I just gave it a good rating too. Of the 10 people who have rated it so far the average is 8.6, that sounds about right to me.

John-SJ

[smellymummy]

About the random placement of units, I think that's half true. Sometimes a good job is done at placing your army in the correct position in relation to the enemy. While at other times it's like an idiot planned the attack - that's when you end up with your flanking units in the middle your front line (lambs to the slaughter?).

[Mercantile]

perhaps this is a realistic approach, its not like military history hasn't been chock full of great strategic manuevers, as well as plenty of boneheaded mistakes. I guess the crappy thing if it is random, is that you have no control. I would think as long as it is better more often than not, that would be historically accurate I am dying to know if i should buy the game. The review scared me but MarkG's rebuttal sounds great as well. I really disliked the first one???????
[This message has been edited by Mercantile (edited November 20, 2000).]

[Imran Siddiqui]

Hmmm, I guess I'll wait for other reviews in deciding to get CtP2. I always trust Gamespot as they've never been wrong in the reviews for games that I own.

And 7.2 isn't a bad score people... better than the 6.5 CtP got .

[Monkey]

WOW!!! After 19 reader reviews the score stands at 8.8. Talk about power to the people! I can't seem to find the link to read them though.... strange.

[Imran Siddiqui]

That is because there haven't been any written reviews that passed muster (100 words, etc).

[Triphosphatase]

I woudn't take Gamespot very seriously if I were you. Their reviews are biased towards large and 'popular' developers (Diablo 2) and they deviate their opinion from the crowd. They have writtin awful reviews of games, giving high marks to 'not so hot' games just to satisfy the hype (Red Alert2, Tiberium Sun).

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well all I know is that they gave a higher mark to Icewind Dale over Diablo 2, which I definetly agreed with (Diablo 2 actually didn't get a great rating).

And your remarks are simply wrong!
http://www.zdnet.com/gamespot/filter...196969,00.html

Tiberian Sun got a 7.9, which is not good at all!!

I like that you are trying to defend your game, but defaming a well known site is below you.

I consider Gamespot and PC.IGN as my sources to if I should buy a game if there is no demo and they have never failed me.

[Kautilya]

Hmm. Pc.ign has panned it as well. 6/10 http://pc.ign.com/reviews/14118.html

Though reading the review I seriously wonder how long the reviewer has played the game.

[vlad]

Well thus far for me Gamespot liked the game ALOT more than I do. I would give it a 5.0 on their scale. I am not giving up though, still playing it to see if it grows on me at all.

[Maxxes]

quote: WOW!!! After 19 reader reviews the score stands at 8.8. Talk about power to the people!

The people already owning the game are the hardcore fans that run to the shop as soon as it's released, so i don't think that much about this score.

That said, I have problems myself with reviews written by people who played the game a few hours or who don't like the genre at all (see the PC.IGN review)
[This message has been edited by Maxxes (edited November 21, 2000).]

[EdCase]

Havin read many many reviews in my time, I now have come to the conclusion that :-
Any reviewer with a "taste" for the type of game reviewed will lean towards a higher score (Yes i know they claim to be impartial,but has anyone ever met a TRULY impartial person?) Hence i long ago concluded that if any game belongs to a genre I enjoy and I like the way it looks i'll buy and give it every chance.I liked CTP and so far I like CTPII it appears to have progressed.The developement team listened to the players and worked in the most popular requests.Games like any software evolve and providing the developers listen to the players,I for one will buy and play their games so viva CTPIII and until then CTPII is the game of choice.

quote: Originally posted by Maxxes on 11-21-2000 12:51 AM The people already owning the game are the hardcore fans that run to the shop as soon as it's released, so i don't think that much about this score.

yeah, but the existance of "hardcore" players for ctp1/2 should tell you something, no?

quote: Originally posted by smellymummy on 11-20-2000 10:07 PM About the random placement of units, I think that's half true. Sometimes a good job is done at placing your army in the correct position in relation to the enemy. While at other times it's like an idiot planned the attack - that's when you end up with your flanking units in the middle your front line (lambs to the slaughter?).

i have NEVER seen falking units in the middle. perhaps it's because you dont have any offensive/defensive units in your stack????

[Triphosphatase]

I am completely unbiased!

7.9 is still a high mark for TS, it deserved a 5! Diablo2 also...

[EdCase]

quote: Originally posted by Triphosphatase on 11-21-2000 01:29 AM I am completely unbiased!

I never mentioned bias.Biased is to strong a term. DiabloII hah! game should have had this quote on the box -- "Close your eyes,bend down.Ok now we're going to shove this rehash as far up your a$$ as we can "
Now that my friend shows my bias

[Depp]

Why go to gamespot and those places that play a game for 2 days and write a dumbass review ? Listen to them are not wise. Turn to the sites that review games for 2 weeks and are competent. Like Strategy Games Plus (their old name) www.cdmag.com, they are by far the best reviewers I have seen on the web.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well, Gamespot gave Diablo 2 a 8.7 (I think), which is a score I would have given it. Fun game, but gets boring. 7.1 isn't bad. It just means it is an average game, nothing special...

And I still respect and hold Gamespot as the standard all reviewers should emulate. Btw, what is that sense in releasing a review 2 weeks after the game comes out?! Reviews are meant for guides on whether or not to buy a game, so they should come out as soon as possible. And remember they got the games first (even as much as a week before).

[Dark Renown]

[quoteSo what if the tech tree isn't 100% true to history! If it's for the good of game balance, let fascism come before democracy. Gameplay is more important than trying to cram EVERY tech and EVERY historical time period and unit that ever existed.

[/quote]

Didnt fascism really come before democracy? Im pretty sure it did. Anyway whats wrong with having fascism in the game? not all fascist governments were raceist(like spains)

[Ralf]

quote: Originally posted by MarkG on 11-20-2000 07:55 PM on combat: [QUOTE]The combat system is still hampered by the fact that you have no control over unit placement on the tactical screen, and that you are essentially reduced to being a spectator as the battle unfolds. Watching valuable units die because of seemingly random map placement can be frustrating

MarkG quote: RANDOM??????

Well, MarkG - can i interfere by drag-dropping my own units around in better positions on the battle-screen, BEFORE the battle executes?

Can the human player do that, or cant he?

[Imran Siddiqui]

quote: Didnt fascism really come before democracy? Im pretty sure it did. Anyway whats wrong with having fascism in the game? not all fascist governments were raceist(like spains)

Uh... you failed high school history didn't you ? Fascism arose in the 1920s in Italy. Democracy can be traced to 1776 in the United States (or even before).

And nothing is wrong with Fascist governments, just having them as a prereq for Democracy is kind of silly.

[Carrion]

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui on 11-21-2000 02:06 PM Uh... you failed high school history didn't you ? Fascism arose in the 1920s in Italy. Democracy can be traced to 1776 in the United States (or even before). And nothing is wrong with Fascist governments, just having them as a prereq for Democracy is kind of silly.

Actually Ancient Greece had a basic form of Democracy. The US isn't a democracy at all. Its a Consitutional Republic. True it does have elements of Democracy in it but it is a far cry from a "true democracy." Democracy has every citizen vote on all matters of the state. As I recall I didn't have a say in any bill presented to the senate or congress this year. We elect representatives who in turn are supposed to do what they think is in our best intrests.

Anyway I can discuss this all day there is my 3 cents

quote: Originally posted by Ralf on 11-21-2000 01:58 PM MarkG quote: RANDOM?????? Well, MarkG - can i interfere by drag-dropping my own units around in better positions on the battle-screen, BEFORE the battle executes? Can the human player do that, or cant he?

no you can not. but this does NOT mean that the placement in RANDOM. the placement of units during a battle, follow a certain SET OF RULES. your CHOICE of units of your stack determines your TACTICS for the battle....

[John-SJ]

Hey, MarkG,

There's one I've missed, how do I set the rules that determine battle tactics? THANKS!

John-SJ