GameSpot's most disapointing game

Trifna · December 22, 2002, 16:54

http://gamespot.com/gamespot/feature...2002/pc33.html

Guess what's GameSpot most disapointing game for 2002? Play the World.

You agree? You don't? Is it THAT disapointing??

Madcaptn · December 22, 2002, 17:03

I really don't care about what reviews or all the pools and crap that other sites do or cry about. Me and a friend are on a 11 hours game right now on Regent with 6 AIs and are just having a little lag. All these stupid reviews and stuff should just wait till PTW has better patches. I'll just laugh at them for now since it seems that I'm one of the few that is having an hell of a good time with PTW, maybe these guys are just having crappy connections and aren't running 1.14F yet. The game is awesome and I'm sure that the next patches will make it even better.

Every online games are getting patched all the time so these reviews are coming in a little too fast imo.

Inverse Icarus · December 22, 2002, 17:49

PtW was my biggest disappointment for this year.

Quote:

Every online games are getting patched all the time so these reviews are coming in a little too fast imo.

but, in almost every case, the game RUNS out of the box (multiplayer). and yes, playing games with people you know IRL that lvie close by only have moderate lag, but playing with people across the world (or, even across new york state) lags unbelievably, even after 1.14f. my friend counted our 56 seconds from the time he hit R until the time the worker started roading.

GhengisFarb™ · December 22, 2002, 18:18

Quote:

Originally posted by Madcaptn
All these stupid reviews and stuff should just wait till PTW has better patches.

When did it become standard for games to not be complete when you bought the box? How many patches must the reviewers wait for before it is considered to be an off the shelf product?

"Sorry, this game cannot be reviewed at this time as we are still waiting on the fourth Firaxis patch which will then complete the BASIC product purchase."

WarpStorm · December 22, 2002, 18:38

The thing that has lowered GameSPot's credibility in my eyes is the blatant disinformation that they've been spreading.

They repeat the fabrication that MP was promised with Civ3 and then made an expansion. This may have been wishful thinking on their part, but I've seen no evidence that this was promised anywhere on the net. If anyone has a link where a Firaxian states this please show me it.

They don't mention that a patch is available that solves many players MP woes.

They brush off the single player enhancements as 'less than a handful of new units and upgrades and a bunch of jumbled scenario maps'. Less than a handful would be 4 or less correct? By my count, an un-modded game of PTW has 35 new units (admittedly, this is counting kings). This isn't counting the 54 units in the Extras directory. Oh yeah, and that 8 new civs thing. (And all the other SP changes that have really made the game a joy).

I'm not ticked that they were Dissappointed in it. That's their right. The crappy journalism does piss me off though. A little research rather than trying to be dramatic would serve me better. If their 'facts' are this far off on this title how about those other titles they review.

Nubclear · December 22, 2002, 18:50

[QUOTE] Originally posted by WarpStorm
They brush off the single player enhancements as 'less than a handful of new units and upgrades and a bunch of jumbled scenario maps'. Less than a handful would be 4 or less correct? By my count, an un-modded game of PTW has 35 new units (admittedly, this is counting kings). This isn't counting the 54 units in the Extras directory. Oh yeah, and that 8 new civs thing. (And all the other SP changes that have really made the game a joy).
[QUOTE]

IMO, new units and civs just dont cut it.....

WarpStorm · December 22, 2002, 18:59

Maybe the single player enhancements don't cut it for you, but they weren't even mentioned except to brush them off as if they weren't there. They are there, they are significant, IMNSHO. They were the reason I got PTW, not the MP modes (I know that is not the way it was marketed).

vee4473 · December 22, 2002, 20:09

the chjoices for this poll are not good. It seems to me that choice 2 and 4 are the same

what the ****?

rockhopper · December 22, 2002, 21:17

Easily my biggest dissapointment of the year, as the award is for.

Prior to this, I had nothing but total confidence in Firaxis and their products.

I just want to play PTW on a 3-system LAN, nevermind the Internet. 4 second lag when moving a unit is unaccaptable for a turn-based game played over a LAN, period.

I should not have to micromanage every single detail so I dont miss when a new improvement is built, or a new scientific advance has been acquired. I dread to think how non-fun the game gets when you have a sprawling empire.

Firaxis' own Alpha Centauri is the benchmark for this style of turn-based 4X gaming. Does PTW measure up to that? Not even close...

For all of you who are enjoying your PTW, thats fine. Personally I expect quality when I pay for things.

jdd2007 · December 22, 2002, 21:31

i will buy PtW months from now, and i know I wont be disappointed...

Inverse Icarus · December 22, 2002, 21:58

all the online websites selling civ3 had multiplayer listed until about 2 weeks before release.

Zero · December 23, 2002, 01:40

The truth (IMO) is that PTW IS the most disappointing release of this year. Well I bought it anyway and I dont like it one bit. But hey that doesnt stop me from playing it with my friend.

Dis · December 23, 2002, 04:49

well if it worked out of the box it wouldn't have been disappointing. having to wait for patches is no fun.

CrONoS · December 23, 2002, 04:58

True. PTW was DISAPPOINTING... not the worst game of the year. It's good to show what Gamespot say:
" However, sometimes it's impossible not to approach a particular game with a certain set of expectations; some games have such ambitious concepts or such good predecessors that you can't help but wonder whether they could have turned out differently."

Earth And Beyond was in the list of the most disappointing game of the year to.
Look at the WORST game of the year,
http://gamespot.com/gamespot/feature...2002/pc34.html
hahahhaha, look at Demonworld: Dark Armies, THAT'S look real bad. hahahahha

Anguille2 · December 23, 2002, 05:33

I was looking forward to this expansion...but i am not a patch guy (i change my computer too often...work) i just cannot download 5 patches every time for just 1 game.

Yolky · December 23, 2002, 10:51

Quote:

Originally posted by Madcaptn
I really don't care about what reviews or all the pools and crap that other sites do or cry about. Me and a friend are on a 11 hours game right now on Regent with 6 AIs and are just having a little lag. All these stupid reviews and stuff should just wait till PTW has better patches. I'll just laugh at them for now since it seems that I'm one of the few that is having an hell of a good time with PTW, maybe these guys are just having crappy connections and aren't running 1.14F yet. The game is awesome and I'm sure that the next patches will make it even better.

Every online games are getting patched all the time so these reviews are coming in a little too fast imo.

In my opnion you are wrong, since we buy the game and not the patch. Yes I know same old story but will you pay $45 000 for a car with no tires, and then get them in the mail a month or two later?

Gamespot tried the game they released. It got judged on the game released. Why do we have to wait for patches?

Let the game get judged on for what is released and not patched. Hell any game can be good if\when patched.

Again old argument but you can say now that
Call to Power 2 is a great game now that it is patched and modded. Wich I do.

Davor

Inverse Icarus · December 23, 2002, 12:05

note: being disappointing != the worst game of the year.

it doesn't mean it's a bad game. it means it had potential that hasn't be recognized.

and unless firaxis releases another AMAZING patch this year, theres no way to debate the other side.

Stuie · December 23, 2002, 13:06

Age of Wonders 2 was the biggest disappointment for me. Just didn't bring enough new to the table to warrant the "2". Nice to look at I suppose, but the original was much more fun. I stopped playing it after only a couple weeks.

As for PTW, itdid exactly what I needed it to do out of the box, but then I'm not a MP fan.

Now that I think about it, I only bought three games this year. That's one less than last year; either I'm getting too picky or the games coming out just aren't worth it.

Velociryx · December 23, 2002, 17:25

What...are you guys NUTS?!

You mean....you actually want it to work as advertised (or sorta close to it) out of the box???

Who the heck do you think you are, demanding such things of this poor, misunderstood, demonized industry, and why on EARTH should out-of-box functionality even be a consideration? *TOTALLY* irrelevant. I believe a recently-heard phrase was....rubbish. Complete nonsense.

Stuff like that doesn't matter....this is the software biz....remember? It's only games, anyway, so whatcha complaining about?

Yolky · December 23, 2002, 17:55

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx

What...are you guys NUTS?!

You mean....you actually want it to work as advertised (or sorta close to it) out of the box???

Who the heck do you think you are, demanding such things of this poor, misunderstood, demonized industry, and why on EARTH should out-of-box functionality even be a consideration? *TOTALLY* irrelevant. I believe a recently-heard phrase was....rubbish. Complete nonsense.

Stuff like that doesn't matter....this is the software biz....remember? It's only games, anyway, so whatcha complaining about?

what was I thinking of. You explained it perfectly.

Davor

ACooper · December 23, 2002, 20:54

God am I tired of people complaining about how the game don't work.

GS had the wrong info and wrote a very negatively biased article. Case closed.

I have yet to see (serious) lags in the online games I have played. Just be choosy about who you play with and make sure your computer is in order.

Yes, PTW has warts. Yes, you have to get patches. The Firaxis team has done a good job with providing patches and assistance.

Give it up you purvayors of negativity. Who you crappin'?

Velociryx · December 23, 2002, 22:21

Well said, ACooper!

And on a totally unrelated note, I've got a used, low-mileage Ford Pinto Station Wagon (bright red), for sale....cheap!

Don't worry about that whole exploding engine thing....it's a myth....mostly.

And....and....the times it does happen....well....see....that's ummm....that's a feature, actually.

Call it a high-powered cigarette lighter.

Or something.

-=Vel=-

notyoueither · December 23, 2002, 22:24

More auto analogies. Great. That's helpful. Yay.

Velociryx · December 23, 2002, 22:35

Hey, believe me bro....nobody wishes PTW had been a smashing success and a clean release more than me (well, that's prolly overstated, but the essence is certainly true!) I am probably the MOST reluctant detractor the game has.

Truth is...I could give a rat's a$$ about the MP side of Civ3, because taking a game like Civ3 and making it MP reduces it to it's lowest common denominator. You almost can't escape the rush-beast. In SP, you're not so much competing against the AI, you're competing against yourself, and therein lies the greatest challenge.

My beef isn't, and never has been, with the game taken as a whole, nor with Firaxis (excellent, by the way) post-sales support.

My beef has been, and remains, that I'm not a smoke and mirrors kinda guy. When I buy something, I want what I buy to pretty much resemble what the product description SAYS I'm buying, and I don't wanna be made to jump thru a lot of hoops for it. Nor am I overly interested in hearing some jive along the lines of "oh, it's okay....really....go ahead and give us your money, and we'll maybe fix the obvious problems."

I understand that others might not care, but it's an issue with me, and apparently I'm not the only one at that particular party.

-=Vel=-

notyoueither · December 23, 2002, 22:40

... and you will run into this repeatedly in the future with software. The power of the Internet to enable the release and patch model is too great for publishers to pass up; except for a few who will diminish rapidly in numbers as time goes on.

Oh, and btw... we had all these arguments a year ago with Civ3 1.07 (or very close). Many people expressed their pleasure that they got it early and had some input into the patching process. So you don't like it, many others do. Who do you think the publishers will want to please?

Velociryx · December 23, 2002, 22:43

Well.....if enough of us who don't like it decide to vote with our wallets (as I did), then long-term, they'll start giving us what we want, or they'll go out of business.

Economics is pretty simple that way, and I'd say, based on the plethora (and growing) number of poorly recieved reviews that PTW got out the gate, it's a fair bet that there are some fairly disgruntled consumers out there.

-=Vel=-

Velociryx · December 23, 2002, 22:49

No...there's more to be said on that topic, and you raise a good point.

The rise of the internet, and more specifically, broadband capabilities, HAS in turn, given rise to a new mindset where software is concerned.

Release something that barely passes muster, and fix it later.

And if you're cool with that, by all means, spend your money how you wanna!

But IMO, there's a better USE for that new technology. The model they're using is fundamentally flawed in that it creates disgruntled customers, and as anybody in retail can tell you, negative word of mouth advertising can be hurtful in the extreme to business.

But....they could tweak the model slightly, and have legions of happy customers.

Release something that's more or less complete, charge a nominal (10-12 bucks a year) fee to allow users to log into a private website (hosted on a server farm anywhere in the world), to recieve the latest *upgrades* (not patches to bring the game to full functionality, but genuine *upgrades* to performance and game play), and have a place to meet others for MP.

THAT's the future of the model. Companies are enjoying a period of release-crap-fix-later now, but I do not see that trend continuing in the long term. If it does, I predict you'll see a new renaissance of startups doing it a better way, and the old guard will either change with them, or go out of business trying to sell unfinished goods.
-=Vel=-

notyoueither · December 23, 2002, 22:52

Actually, they will save money in the development process. They will garner some additional hard core fans who get to see their own, personal influence in the final product. They will lose a few sales, you are correct. However, they will gain elsewhere.

notyoueither · December 23, 2002, 22:56

Darn X-Posts.

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
Release something that's more or less complete, charge a nominal (10-12 bucks a year) fee to allow users to log into a private website (hosted on a server farm anywhere in the world), to recieve the latest *upgrades* (not patches to bring the game to full functionality, but genuine *upgrades* to performance and game play), and have a place to meet others for MP.

THAT's the future of the model. Companies are enjoying a period of release-crap-fix-later now, but I do not see that trend continuing in the long term. If it does, I predict you'll see a new renaissance of startups doing it a better way, and the old guard will either change with them, or go out of business trying to sell unfinished goods.
-=Vel=-

I agree with you 100% on this. There are better ways to use the release and patch/update model.

Unfortunately, when you are dealing with a cash strapped publisher who needs results this XMas quarter to stay alive (like it sounds Infog. is) you are not likely to see such foresight.

Velociryx · December 23, 2002, 22:58

Ahhhh, but that's the crux of the matter....businesses don't *stay* in business by saving money. They stay in business by MAKING money.

Long term, the only way to continue making money is by producing quality stuff. Doesn't matter what it is.

Sure, you'll always have low-end products in every industry, but almost nobody WANTS to be known as a low-end producer.

Doing it the way briefly outlined above will MAKE the company money....not just save some pennies here and there, AND they'll still realize savings on dev costs because the users logging into that aforementioned private website now have a vested interest in the software's continued development. It's a natural extension that their voices be heard (and their advice heeded).

So....said company gets a lot of eyeballs looking hard at the game to recommend tweaks and improvements, AND the company gets a continuous income stream that's no longer so tied to Q4 sales.

50,000 players paying a buck a month for the latest upgrades is....a pretty sweet haul.

-=Vel=-