Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Gamespot Preview: MAJOR REVIEW ERRORS!

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 3
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 template Next
  • #1

    Gamespot Preview: MAJOR REVIEW ERRORS!

    I don't know about all of you, but have you been noticing some inconsistancies with what Gamespot says about the game and what Firaxis has been reporting? Here is an example of an error... it's about combat:

    From the Gamespot CIV III preview, page 3 of 4 (click here to go to the article):
    ...Zones of control have been eliminated , so movement is much more fluid. Because rivers now run between squares instead of through them, it is possible to set up a defense behind a river line...
    Zones of control have been eliminated? What the hell is that? That's not true.
    Of the Holy Roman Empire, this was once said:
    "It is neither holy or roman, nor is it an empire."
    Tags: None
  • #2
    That can't be right. ZOCs have beeen a part of civ since.....

    the last word I heard was, many ancient and medievil units have no ZOC, but most modern units do. HOWEVER, you could build a fortress to give an ancient unit stationed there a ZOC.

    but that was months ago. they might have changed without telling us
    Any man can be a Father, but it takes someone special to be a BEAST

    I was just about to point out that Horsie is simply making excuses in advance for why he will suck at Civ III...
    ...but Father Beast beat me to it! - Randomturn

    Comment

    • #3
      No... I'm sure it's in. I think Gamespot made a hasty generalization or they just plain screwed that up.

      But here's another one, that I know is a screw up because this was clarified by Firaxis recently:

      Gamespots preview, page 3 of 4 link:
       ...culture determines city boundaries as well as national boundaries...
      Dan Magaha from Firaxis indicated recently that the workable city tiles are always the same and your citizens can always work the tiles that are 2 squares from the city centre. The only difference is that if your borders do not extend up to those 2 square, any enemy unit can occupy that boundary without any diplomatic reprecussions.

      I find this Gamespot preview very inaccurate, and they obviously didn't do their homework.

      They should have given me the job of previewing the game.
      Of the Holy Roman Empire, this was once said:
      "It is neither holy or roman, nor is it an empire."

      Comment

      • #4
        While I'm at it... here's another one, that may not actually be an error, but this detail may have been changed at the last minute:

        Gamespots preview, page 3 of 4: Link to the page, click here:

        Each type of luxury item (incense, dye, wine, fur, spice, silk, ivory, and diamonds), when connected to a city by a road, makes one content citizen happy or one unhappy citizen content.
        This may not be true. Akron noticed something very interesting about resources and how they affect your citizens:

        Akron's Extraordinary Observations: Link to his post about luxuries:
        Unlike I had previously thought, they don't add a specific number of happy faces based on scarcity. Instead, the first 2 give you one happy face each, the third and fourth give you two happy faces each, the fifth and sixth give you three happy faces each, and finally the seventh and eighth give four happy faces each. That means if you get all of them, you can get 20 happy faces. Also, as you collect more and more of them, the rewards get bigger and bigger.
        I sure hope that hasn't changed!
        Of the Holy Roman Empire, this was once said:
        "It is neither holy or roman, nor is it an empire."

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Gamespot Preview: MAJOR REVIEW ERRORS!

          Originally posted by Jason Beaudoin
          Zones of control have been eliminated? What the hell is that? That's not true.
          Sounds like they played a few turns and then wrote a review. Typical.

          From what I recall, ZOC will be based on the movement ability of a unit, so a unit with a movement of "1" will have no ZOC. I wonder if it is designed such that ZOC can only be exerted on units of lesser movement value - so a move "2" unit exerts ZOC on a "1", but not on another "2", while a "3" exerts ZOC on "2" and "1" units. I'm I rambling? Hell yeah!
          "Stuie has the right idea" - Japher
          "I trust Stuie and all involved." - SlowwHand
          "Stuie is right...." - Guynemer

          Comment

          • #6
            You're right Stuie! I wouldn't rely on anything Gamespot says. I can't believe the lack of professionalism being exhibited from that preview! It's completely unbelievable that they would make errors like that when they have the manual right in front of them. Isn't there any quality control messures over there?

            Anyway, ya... ZOC have been eliminated for most units, but modern, mobile units have this ability, plus units in a fortress do have the capability to exhert a ZOC. That was confirmed by Jeff Morris of Firaxis, so I know that Gamespot is in error.

            Boneheads!
            Of the Holy Roman Empire, this was once said:
            "It is neither holy or roman, nor is it an empire."

            Comment

            • #7
              Probably because they didn't get the 235 page manual to read through in the press version, just some lame .pdf. Then they gave the game to an AoK/Diablo hack instead of a true Civ fan to review. Almost anything could happen

              We know they're bound to not understand the fine points if they're given a day or two to crank out a review. It's read the press release claims, play a bit to see if they seem to be true, then get writing and screenshotting. Hence the miniscule information we've actually had so far about actually putting together an invasion, nukes, pollution etc etc.
              To doubt everything or to believe everything are two equally convenient solutions; both dispense with the necessity of reflection.
              H.Poincaré

              Comment

              • #8
                Most disturbing is this quote:

                Gamespot preview, page 3 of 4:
                If a unit has an attack factor of nine and attacks a unit with a defense factor of one, it has a 90 percent chance of inflicting a hit-point loss on it during that round.
                I hope THAT is not true. That would mean that a warrior would have a 10% chance of winning a battle against a tank!

                Unacceptable!
                Of the Holy Roman Empire, this was once said:
                "It is neither holy or roman, nor is it an empire."

                Comment

                • #9
                  hope THAT is not true. That would mean that a warrior would have a 10% chance of winning a battle against a tank!
                  I suppose units have many hit points so it's not a 10% chance...

                  If they had 3 unit points the chance the warrior won would be 10%x10%x10%=0,1%

                  One in a thousand... Woudn't happen many times
                  I do not want to achieve immortality threw my work. I want to achieve it threw not dying - Woody Allen

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    No it doesn't. It means that a warrior of regular (3HP) status and 1 attack status would have

                    *Does some statistics*

                    around 1/100 chance of winning against a tank also of 3HP status. This comes from the fact that the warrior has to win 3 rounds (at 9-1 odds) before the tank wins 3 rounds to win the actual battle.

                    EDIT: I posted before Bakunine's response showed up. Bakunine, it's ~1%, not .1% because we don't require the warrior to win all 3 rounds in a row.
                    12-17-10 Mohamed Bouazizi NEVER FORGET
                    Stadtluft Macht Frei
                    Killing it is the new killing it
                    Ultima Ratio Regum

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Jason Beaudoin
                      That would mean that a warrior would have a 10% chance of winning a battle against a tank!

                      Unacceptable!
                      Well, if the warrior has a pointy stick.... or a 16-ton weight suspended above the tank, it could happen! That better not be the case! We'll be right back to the old Phalanx defeats Battleship scenario.

                      I wonder if the combat formulas will be included in the manual? Or is that just wishful thinking from an old wargamer....?
                      "Stuie has the right idea" - Japher
                      "I trust Stuie and all involved." - SlowwHand
                      "Stuie is right...." - Guynemer

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Jason Beaudoin
                        Most disturbing is this quote:



                        I hope THAT is not true. That would mean that a warrior would have a 10% chance of winning a battle against a tank!

                        Unacceptable!
                        This may not be the case, although I don't think I've studied it as much as you all. If the tank, for instance, had (oh, for the sake of arguement cause I don't know) 10 "hit points" where a warrior had 1 "hit point" then the chances of a warrior beating a tank is .1*.1*.1*.1*.1*.1*.1*.1*.1*.1 = .0000000001 or .00000001%

                        That is assuming that they have assigned hit points to each unit, which would make sense from my understanding of the way that they have implemented SMAC.

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          How could Firaxis be so naive to let these boneheads write such false reviews??
                          The greatest generals in history didn't use war simulations, they just played Civ 2

                          An old saying goes "For every language a man knows, he is that many times a man"
                          Therefore, George Bush is half a man.

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            *Sigh*

                            Read my post for demonstration that you don't simply raise the .1 probability to the number of HP the tank has. There are multiple possible combinations of round outcomes, all of which must be summed to get the final winning probability.
                            12-17-10 Mohamed Bouazizi NEVER FORGET
                            Stadtluft Macht Frei
                            Killing it is the new killing it
                            Ultima Ratio Regum

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Originally posted by KrazyHorse
                              No it doesn't. It means that a warrior of regular (3HP) status and 1 attack status would have

                              *Does some statistics*

                              around 1/100 chance of winning against a tank also of 3HP status. This comes from the fact that the warrior has to win 3 rounds (at 9-1 odds) before the tank wins 3 rounds to win the actual battle.

                              EDIT: I posted before Bakunine's response showed up. Bakunine, it's ~1%, not .1% because we don't require the warrior to win all 3 rounds in a row.
                              With 9-1 odds, a warrior has a chance of:

                              (1/9)^3=0.0014=0.14% chance of winning against a tank

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 3 template Next
                              Working...