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?

""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

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,

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).

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

quote: Originally posted by Grier on 11-24-2000 11:14 AM 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.

I agree on checking multiple sources. (That doesn't excuse IGN, though...)

I don't think the review was good because it wholly omits or only most limitedly covers key features of the game, such as the scenarios, CTPII's customizability, the AI intelligence at different levels, and unconventional warfare.

It's kinda like saying, volvos look boxy and nonaerodynamic, and thus you shouldn't buy them; without examining their safety, their maintenance costs, durability, handling, whatever. Examining these features may lead the consumer to think volvos still are a bad buy, but at least a reviewer should examine them. Otherwise it's not a review just an overview. Which is what the IGN article is.

This is a problem with internet reviews in general. People can say whatever they want and just can't be held highly accountable. If this was a print review, I think the accountability would be much higher.

On the other side, it's not like there aren't a bazillion recources like IGN only clicks away -- a bad review is only their loss in the long run. I liked gamespot's (for instance) coverage much more because it offered so much more information that allowed the reader to make a choice (and offers space for reader reviews and other opinions). I don't care if IGN didn't like the game; I think that's totlly good. I'd like to know why so I can make my own decision about buying it.

After talking with them, I don't think IGN is getting my eyes again.

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui on 11-24-2000 03:08 PM Hehehe... this is one of the funniest things I've read! NO REVIEW IS UNBIASED! Everyone has their biases on what they like or dislike! Just because a review is bad means they are biased, BUT if CtP2 gets a good review it means they are unbiased? Come on!

The reviewer was biased against the entire genre, Imran. This is what most of the gripes in this thread are about (just in case you hadn't read the rest of the thread). Having someone who hates TBS revivew CTP2, or SMAC or Civ3 is going to return a negative review on all 3 products because they're all TBS. And don't ask me to review AOK or any of that ilk because I hate RTS, therefore you'd get a biased review.

------------------
Big Dave