How come Civ 3 got great reviews and CtP2 got bad ones?

Yolky · February 5, 2002, 16:30

I mean CtP2 is as good or in some areas better than Civ3. My guess is that most of the reviewers are either sucking up to Firaxis or are being paid in someway since Civ3 shouldn't be getting that many good reviews.

CtP2 had bad reviews because of the AI but what about Civ3? No unit stacking, no real good combat(found it boring after awhile) no stealth units etc...

What is your opnion?

Davor

Oerdin · February 5, 2002, 16:51

I think there are several reasons for this. Number one Civ3 got to trade on the reputation of past products while CTP2 was more or less on its own; it wasn't even allowed to use the civ name like CTP1 did.

That a side there is another difference: Civ3 is poorly thought out but superficially it looks very neat. The graphics are shiny and well animated, the diplomacy and strategic resources ideas sound neat (and really are), and the idea of differentiating different civs sounds like a big step forward. You don't notice the flaws and late game tedium that is enherint with the design until after you've played quite alot.
This is the form over substance style of game developement.

On the other hand CTP2 was well thought out but didn't have the budget to polish and promote the finished product. Combat, GUI lay out, unit stacking, and MP were all well mapped out before the actual programing began so the whole game was well integrated. Where they fell short was they didn't have the money to design great "eye candy" and to properally balance the AI and the different units. This is the substance over form style of game development.

This means that playtesters, who only have a few hours to play each game on their desk, loved the look of Civ3 and hated the look and feel of CTP2. They never found out that Civ3 suffers horribly from late game tedium (they never got far enough into the game to find out about it) while CTP2 only gets stronger and more intertaning as the game progresses.

Lastly we are playing the modded version of CTP2 while the reviewers just spent a few hours with the unpatched, unmodded version and simply panned the game. I doubt a single reviewer ever even played a MP game. The weakest link in CTP2 has always been the AI, but with MP your playing living breath, thinking, negotiating human beings which makes for some really spectacular games.

child of Thor · February 5, 2002, 19:22

Yolky,
well i guess the suits will only ever know the real reason.Still it was very suspicious that all(apart from one i think)the main reviews were singing its praises whilst at the same time the Civ3 forum was getting more and more negative?Its true that the single player aspect of unmoded CTP2 pales fairly quickly as it is, after all a bit boring with the dormant AI.But i've been impressed with the mods so far and the future could be brighter than Civ3 getting the makeover that people want.I guess the expectation for Civ3 was so much higher as well....i know it was from me,but i'd learnt my lesson about the hype from CTP to CTP2 so held off buying it straight out.I'm just glad that CTP2 shipped with a decent editing tool and multiplayer.

Martin Gühmann · February 6, 2002, 03:27

In my opinion it has to do with Sid's name and the Civilisation name on the box. Yeah game testers never tested these games well. At my pc game magazine gave both games a similar rating. Unfortunatly on a high level.

-Martin

Locutus · February 6, 2002, 08:00

Actually, let's be honest here: most of the reviews CtP2 got weren't all *that* bad. I think overall, all reviews combined, it got something like 7 out of 10 (some gave it a 10, some a 4, but most a 6, 7 or 8). I clearly remember several reviewers actually praising CtP2's AI - that should tell you something about how much they play a game before writing their review

Of course, Civ3 is getting even better reviews, but it would be inaccurate to say that CtP2 got mostly bad ones...

That said, I figured out years ago that 95% of all reviewers don't have a f*cking clue about what they're talking about. When you consider whether or not to buy a certain game, reviews of Gamespot, ZDNet and the like are the last thing you want to use as guide...
(instead play a demo, read reviews by people who atually know what they're talking about (in case of Civ people like Yin/Velocyrix/Markos/etc), visit forums, etc)