The IGN review is an outrage (unbiased opinion)

Triphosphatase · November 21, 2000, 03:12

The reviewer is obviously a rts fan and should not have written the review at all. Let me quote:

quote:

You’ll often need to override or turn this feature off to grow your empire effectively.

Did you want the mayors to completely take any responsibility off your hands so all you have to do is move your troops and press End Turn?

quote:

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

What did you want then? A mini-RTS game where you get to play a short skirmish? (that would be interesting but is too unreasonable)

quote:

The combat screen is utterly uninspiring to watch and could easily be cut from the game with no loss.

Your saying that you should not be able to watch how your army lost to your opponents in a 12vs12 battle?

quote:

As you slowly and methodically explore, build, and manage in the early stages of the game, there’s almost no sense of tension or emotional engagement.

Your right, its not fun at all if you can't control a laser take in real time. [cough] short attention span [/cough]

quote:

You can literally play for an hour without any drama or conflict as you march your exploring units about the map hoping to stumble across another empire

Maybe you shoudn't have picked Gigantic Map/4 Civs in that sole game that you played before you wrote the review.

quote:

The fairly weak AI running the other empires also makes things a bit too easy.

Did you play on Easy in the only game you played? Have you actually tried Impossible? (For the people that do not own the game, Impossible is very hard (much better than Civ2/CTP)

quote:

To an extent, this easiness holds true further into the game and on “harder” difficulty settings. Fortunately, the harder settings let you encounter other empires more quickly, particularly if you’ve chosen to play on a small map.

Ooo you did try a harder setting. They actually come to you instead of you coming to them...

quote:

In the face of an onslaught of 3D, animated games, the designers of Call to Power II were faced with the hard task of bringing life to what’s essentially a complex board game

CTP2 wasn't and never was trying to compete with those games...

quote:

Still, the overall graphic style of the game world and units is bland compared to similar-looking games like Age of Empires II, and animations are minimal and dull, even in combat.

Another reviewer that overlooks gameplay over 'pretty' graphics.

quote:

Sound effects and voice responses from your units are equally lifeless

This sentence was actually funny. I sure want the units to shout, 'SIR, YES SIR' every time I select them. Another RTS biased opinion.

And the last one:

quote:

It would have been better to reduce or reorient the focus to city building and management or to combat instead of slightly covering those, plus diplomacy, trade, scientific research, and on and on.

Did the game overwhelm you too much. Do you really think the developers should make Civ: Science, Civ: Trade, Civ: Diplomacy, Civ: Combat as seperate games?

The review is completely unacceptable. People that do not like CTP2 could see this. How could they call SMAC a 'masterpiece' (different reviewer) and bash CTP2?

November 21, 2000, 06:02

quote:

It would have been better to reduce or reorient the focus to city building and management or to combat instead of slightly covering those, plus diplomacy, trade, scientific research, and on and on.

dear god, just noticed that one. someone should tell him that civ is ALL that!!! and that's why it's great

Paulypav · November 21, 2000, 08:23

This is a joke or something, right? How could a magazine whose opinion is valued by its readers do such a terrible job reviewing the game. This review is basically an attack on the TBS style of game and has no specific criticisms of CTP2. I haven't gotten the game yet, waiting for Christmas and I can't afford the time loss with finals coming up. So far these reviews have done nothing to change my desire to buy the game. I hope that people don't make their decision to buy the game based on such incomplete reviews.

------------------
“The American people have now spoken, but it’s going to take a little while to determine exactly what
they said.” — President Clinton

Monkey · November 21, 2000, 09:04

quote:

Still, it feels as if the game takes on too much at once and does it too abstractly. It would have been better to reduce or reorient the focus to city building and management or to combat instead of slightly covering those, plus diplomacy, trade, scientific research, and on and on.

That quote by the reviewer clearly showed that he didn't know what he was talking about. Obviously this was the guy's first civ game(or TBS). I don't understand IGN at all. I reread the preview that they wrote with another guy and the indication is that CTP2 is thumbs up compared to CTP1. Then they give the game to a complete newbie who proceeds to destroy a game(or genre) that he knows nothing about. Note that there are NO comparisons with the other civ games like civ2 or SMAC or even CTP1. The only comparison is with AOK, which is absurb. A big thumbs down to IGN.

Provost Harrison · November 21, 2000, 09:26

Yes I agree. Now although I was deterred from the original CtP and still CtP2 unless I see opinion to change my opinion, I am more dismayed by this reviewers capabilities to review the game. I want it reviewed at a TBS, not some very shallow approach which was about as much use to me as a chocolate fireguard...

Apollon · November 21, 2000, 11:15

Bah! Major BS from that guy I must add. (I did it in Imrams topic, but I'll just do it again: )
*sigh* *double sigh* *Unconcious*
that's how I feel about that idiotic review, he clearly never play the game enough (or he's just one who doesn't like Civ games.

""quote:

To an extent, this easiness holds true further into the game and on “harder” difficulty settings. Fortunately, the harder settings let you encounter other empires more quickly, particularly if you’ve chosen to play on a small map.

Ooo you did try a harder setting. They actually come to you instead of you coming to them...

""

Yup, bet he didn't know that one before

Apollon
67651077

Depp · November 21, 2000, 14:33

This guy should be told what a fool he made of himslef. I mean he is just didn't know what kind of game this was. And im pretty sure he is 14 years old as well...

Matte979 · November 21, 2000, 14:38

Have anybody written to them asking for an explaination?
[This message has been edited by Matte979 (edited November 21, 2000).]

Imran Siddiqui · November 21, 2000, 14:47

Oh come on! Simply because he gave a bad review doesn't mean you have to call him 14 years old?! What does that do? Despicable! Call the review bad, ok, but leave the ad hominem attacks aside?

And what do you mean ask them for an explination? They'll say that was their review for the game...

Matte979 · November 21, 2000, 14:55

Explaination why he compares it to AOE II..totaly diffrent game.

Big Dave · November 21, 2000, 15:05

quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui on 11-21-2000 01:47 PM
Oh come on! Simply because he gave a bad review doesn't mean you have to call him 14 years old?! What does that do? Despicable! Call the review bad, ok, but leave the ad hominem attacks aside?

And what do you mean ask them for an explination? They'll say that was their review for the game...

Yes Imram, an explanation why an allegedly professional magazine assigned the wrong style of game to this reviewer. This person is obviously familiar with RTS (what a misnomer!) and has no clue about TBS. I mean this is like asking me to review how difficult it is to work on different makes of car and truck engines. I'm not qualified to write that review, get a mechanic. Now if you want me to review computers, CPU's, video cards or something like that, yes, you have the right man. But I'm not competant to review automotive engines, and this person was not competant to review TBS games.
Respectfully,

David

Imran Siddiqui · November 21, 2000, 16:36

quote:

Explaination why he compares it to AOE II..totaly diffrent game.

He COMPARED THE GRAPHICS to Aok... which seems fair to me (they look similar).

And do me a favor LOOK AT THE REVIEW, DID THEY CHANGE IT? I ask because some of the quotes here aren't in the review (I just checked). I see no reference to Aok... hmmm....

Imran Siddiqui · November 21, 2000, 16:37

Interestingly, if you look at the end of the (new?) review, he compares it to Civ2... so there is some comparison to what came before.

Yatermie · November 21, 2000, 17:01

Thats the entire problem these days.

We are no longer confined in the graphics department. Things can be made photorealistic in realtime now.

That is not the point of a civ game. I don't care if it was in 320x240, if the gameplay is good, i'll play it.

Before you HAD to have gameplay because the graphics sucked compared to TV and the consoles. Now well.. "lets spend millions on graphics and **** the gameplay, the "massmarket" only wants gameplay"

I'm no programmer, but I think that if people would confine the graphics in a TBS to what can be windowed, and is crisp, clear and gets the job done, we could have the great gameplay that would create another "killer app" and get people back to what I believe is the core of computer games, STRATEGY.

If i want mindless killing, I'll use a console. If i want strategy, I'll use my computer. I suppose.. well.. HOMM for gameboy.. the end is near.. sigh..

Monkey · November 21, 2000, 17:33

Hey guys guess what?? I wrote to IGN about the appaling state of the CTP2 review last nite and they HAVE appeared to change the review. They seem to have removed the reference to AOK and have rewrote parts of the review. Read it again now. It's definitely different. Unfortunately the 6.0 still stands though.

Also if anyone has the original copy of the review in their browser cache or have saved it, try comparing it to the old one.

Monkey · November 21, 2000, 17:36

ARrrrgggh quoted instead of editing, sorry
[This message has been edited by Monkey (edited November 21, 2000).]

November 21, 2000, 17:36

yes imran, it seems like there is a LOT of EDITING since yesterday....
no note about it of course...

btw, someone should tell them that 4 players in MP is the suggested setting not the maximum....

Kautilya · November 21, 2000, 19:19

http://pc.ign.com/reviews/14118.html

Another gem from the review ( the revised one I think):
"The combat animations are a little tedious and,
given that you can't really interact with the battle, a little
pointless as well."
Actually you can retreat during the battle using the battle view screen.

MisterV · November 21, 2000, 20:09

Yatermie:

One thing, I agree with position on the IGN review, but I object to your ending hit about "if I want mindless killing, I'll use a console."

I really don't like the constant console bashing from PC users. I for one use often and enjoy both mediums. Sorry to sort of change the subject here, but this is a very ignorant statement. Haven't you ever played a Final Fantasy game? Or how about Xenogears? That PSX game had a deeper and more meaningful theme and story than ANY pc game I know of. Consoles are better for sports games too, if you are into that kind of thing. I agree that PC is better for strategy, but to classify console games as mindless killing for stupid people is ignorant, and doesn't really demonstrate that you have any idea what you are talking about.

Sorry to change the subject, but I just wanted to comment on that.

Triphosphatase · November 21, 2000, 21:38

They edit their original review but does not mention it anywhere on the site? This is sad coming from a respected review site. Even after they edit it, the review is still very poor.

quote:

While it's certainly an improvement over the previous title, it still doesn't expand the original Civ model. We don't expect them to reinvent the genre necessarily, but it would've have been nice to see some meaningful additions to the game.

You mean the new diplomatic model is not a expansion to the original Civ model? What about the new stacked combat and its numerous unit types? That wasn't a 'meaningful addition'?

Sarxis · November 21, 2000, 23:25

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

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

marster · November 22, 2000, 16:30

I think they hit themselves in the head.

I've been corresponding with their PC games editor about the review, which I think is poorly done. It's cool by me if it's a 6, I'd just really like to know substantially why.

their comments email is pc_feedback@ign.com

They say they like feedback. They also say they have a lot of people who agreed with their review.

-mario

quote:

Originally posted by Anunikoba on 11-21-2000 10:25 PM
Without being too hypercritical of the review, I think IGN hit the nail on the head.

Simpleton · November 23, 2000, 04:50

After reading the ORIGINAL review I couldn't help thinking that in todays RTS dominated world CIV1 or 2 would have a tough time getting a good review. To make up for the times we live in I decided to add 2.5 review points to the review to level the playing field. Hey! CTP2 got 8.5! Not bad... Thanks IGN!

------------------
Zimmer of Zammers

November 23, 2000, 05:10

actually I think you guys are biased. Yes they should compare this game to RTS games in terms of how fun it is. Their review is compared to ALL other games. It is designed to convince people to buy one game over another no matter what genre it is. It should even be compared to sports games in terms of how fun it is. But I agree their should be a separate paragraph in the review specifically addressing TBS issues. And I think this separate subsection should be reviewed by a person who likes the genre, or at least doesn't not like it.

But yes this game should be compared to games of other genres because that is their system as is systems of all other online or printed magazines. I just don't like the reviewing system as is, and should be modified. I think reviews should be written by at least 4 people that like different kinds of games. Say sports, sims, strategy, and action games. This would be the only fair way to review any one game. Or at the very least have 2 different strategy reviewers review this game. One RTS and one TBS. This way a prospective RTS gamer that is considering buying this game gets 2 different points of view. And TBS gamers that want to buy it also get 2 different points of view. And the scores should be averaged.
[This message has been edited by Dissident Aggressor (edited November 23, 2000).]

November 23, 2000, 06:53

quote:

Originally posted by Dissident Aggressor on 11-23-2000 04:10 AM
actually I think you guys are biased. Yes they should compare this game to RTS games in terms of how fun it is. Their review is compared to ALL other games. It is designed to convince people to buy one game over another no matter what genre it is. It should even be compared to sports games in terms of how fun it is.

you've go to be joking! "fun" is not something measurable when it comes to different genres and different groups of people. how can you compare the "fun" of winning a soccer game after 10 minutes and a civ game after 15 hours?

quote:

But yes this game should be compared to games of other genres because that is their system as is systems of all other online or printed magazines.

somehow i was under the impression that everyone reviewed a game in comparison to other games of the same genre. especially with civ games, i dont remember any review making references to rts games...

quote:

I think reviews should be written by at least 4 people that like different kinds of games. Say sports, sims, strategy, and action games. This would be the only fair way to review any one game.

i dont see why a strategy game should appeal to a sports fan.

Simpleton · November 23, 2000, 20:06

I agree with Judge. It's unfair to have someone who only plays RTS review a different genre just as it would be wrong for me to review a RTS game. For example I hated absolutely hated Ages of Empires. But I acknowledge that it is a good game from others I've talked to but I would have given it a 4/10 at the most.

November 24, 2000, 01:09

but don't you see it as unfair to have only a TBS fan review the game? What if someone who likes RTS game is interested in buying it. He reads some biased review from a TBS fan and buys the game and doesn't like it. Of course this works both ways as in this case.
Yeah having sports fan review it does seem dumb. But at the very least both a person who likes TBS and one that like RTS should review the game. This way someone who like starcraft relate to the RTS reviewers comments more. And people like us could relate to the TBS reviewer and seriously consider his negative comments.
[This message has been edited by Dissident Aggressor (edited November 24, 2000).]

Judge · November 24, 2000, 01:15

Game reviews and any other reviews for that matter are supposed to be impartial and unbiased. For example it would not be at all fair to compare say Star Wars with The Silence of the Lambs especially if the reviewers comments related to how much "fun" the reviewer had watching each. On the other hand it might be relevant to the review to say that "Science fiction fans might prefer Star Wars"

All reviewers are bound to be a little biased but they should never be ignorant. Many IGN readers will base their purchase choice on a review. A biased review really serves no purpose at all especially if the reviewer doesn't actually like the genre. A good games reviewer should, ideally, have some liking and awareness of all PC game types.

Personally I like most "good" games - Tony Hawk Pro skater 2 is a great game and offers some light relief from Call to Power II or Red Alert but it would be ridiculous for me to say in a review that Tony Hawks was better or vica versa!

Judge · November 24, 2000, 08:33

Dissident Aggressor:

My whole point hinges around the fact that reviews should be unbiased. It is perfectly possible for a reviewer to point out that TBS style games are not what everyone will like but then neither are RTS, puzzle or Arcade games.

However the point is valid in that someone who hasn't played the genre before needs to know, even if the game is the best RTS, TBS, etc. ever, if in fact they would like the genre itself....

It is quite simple for a reviewer to describe the style of game without actually expressing an opinion on whether it he or she actually liked it and then go on to compare the game with other games in its genre.

Personally I think that to qualify as a reviewer of computer games you should like most or all game types. Reviewers who don't like certain genres should simply refuse to review games belonging those genres as their opinion would be too biased.

Grier · November 24, 2000, 12:14

I only read the edited version, and though the review was harsh, it seems like a valid opinion. Whenever you think about getting a game you should look for more than one review anyway, just to make sure that you have a range of opinions.