 |
| |
|
|
Warlord
|
Nov 2000
time: 08:57
| |
|
|
Although personally I did not agree with the review since I have played the series since Civilization and I agree with what most of you have said, I think he was right in writing his ign review. You see his review shows what some1 new to the Civilization series would think. It shows that activision has not done a good job of appealing to those who have never played the series but rather apealed to those who have. This might not necassarily be a good thing either in the long run. Well basically I am saying that the review really probably shows what ppl who have never played TBS games b4 would think. Of course I do think these are narrow minded and stupid ppl, however narrow minded, stupid and ignorant ppl make up the vast majority of the population anyways so we have to get used to them.
|
|
| |
|
|
Chieftain
Scotland
|
Nov 2000
time: 08:57
| |
|
|
yes but most of the people buying ctp2 will already like tbs and will proberly own others, a smaller amount of people will decide they want to try a tbs and should know they will have to get used to a new system.
|
|
| |
|
|
Prince
home
|
Apr 1999
time: 08:57
| |
|
|
People reading the review will either know about TBS or they won't. Either way, it makes more sense to write a review of the game that acknowledges that the game is TBS. If readers are familiar with TBS, great: a review that compares ctp2 to others in the genre will be helpful. If they aren't, then a review that identifies the characterisitics of TBS (i.e. it is NOT RTS!) and then compares ctp2 will be helpful as well.
In this case, it seems that the author hates TBS and wants to keep others from playing TBS, instead of thinking that perhaps other gamers out there might enjoy TBS and then evaluating whether this would be a good introduction to it.
In any case, a review which trashes the game for the differences of the genre helps no one.
|
|
| |
|
|
Prince
Santa Monica, CA
|
Jan 1970
time: 08:57
| |
|
|
CTP 2 was made to apppeal to Turn-Based gamers, not a mass market. When we play tested the game with non-TBS gamers, we found that the learning curve was pretty steep for them and that they did not grasp the fundamental TBS concepts (why can't I select all my guys at once like in C&C?). The decision was made to focus the tutorial on explaining concepts to those familiar with TBS games, not to hold the hand of RTS gamers. It seems that the IGN reviewer has a problem with this.
That being said, the size of the TBS market is considerable- over 2 million Civ2 players, over 600K Civ:CTP players, and over 600K SMAC players.
|
|
| |
|
|
Settler
UK
|
Nov 2000
time: 08:57
| |
|
|
I agree with some of your comments jkadabomb but I think that in general this is clearly an example of a reviewer who simply doesn't understand the TBS genre. Almost all of his comments would be appropriate from someone who either doesn't like TBS games at all or from someone who simply hasn't given CTP II enough time to learn how to play it, the former being the most likely candidate!
Personally I think this genre is excellent and I am certain that to achieve "mass market" appeal it would have to be changed into something that I and most other TBS fans wouldn't like anymore.
Most turn based games are MUCH slower to play because they give you time to think about your strategy and let you do far more micromanagement than RTS's. In theory at least Turn based games also allow the computer more time for AI calculations.
Its fundamental in any TBS that the front end does not make the job even harder than it should be. The old CTP's front end was poor to say the least but the new one is a great improvement.
CTP2 is not, imo, innovative. CTP2 is really a fix of CTP1 with many improvements. I played Civ 1 and 2 for years, I played CTP 1 for a few days and gave up with it. CTP2, so far, has impressed me. I'm not sure if I like the 12 unit army limit, I can't find any way to apply changes to multiple cities simultaneously, I preferred the CIV2 method of reporting problems better and I liked the old advisors! (sad) but in general I think this is probably the best so far. (9/10)
Anyone reviewing this type of game professionally must have some liking for them or they will be comparing their feelings for it with RTS's and arcade games. An avid fan of TBS who didn't like RTS, when reviewing a good RTS such as AOK, would probably complain that he didn't have enough time to think, that there weren't enough technologies and question how you could get emotionally involved with a game which only lasts around 2 hours to play it through!
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
MarkG
22-11-2000 15:23
|
This person is on your Ignore List. To view this post click
[here]
|
|
| |
|
MarkG
22-11-2000 15:52
|
This person is on your Ignore List. To view this post click
[here]
|
|
| |
|
|
Emperor
|
Sep 1999
time: 03:57
| |
|
|
Without being too hypercritical of the review, I think they hit the nail right on the head.
Without being too hypercritical of the game, I think it is pretty good.
|
|
| |
|
|
Chieftain
Scotland
|
Nov 2000
time: 08:57
| |
|
|
how can they say ctp2 has a steep learning curve? Surely its no harder than ctp1? ctp was the first tbs i played and i didnt even have the mannel(friends copy) and i figuered it out in a day or so.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 08:57.
Apolyton Time is 03:57. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
|
|
|
) would one such as myself decide upon purchasing the game.
.