Gamespot review!!!!!

[Monkey]

Only got a 7.2 on gamespot

Read about it here.
http://www.zdnet.com/gamespot/storie...656251,00.html

[MarkG]

on combat:

quote: The combat system is still hampered by the fact that you have no control over unit placement on the tactical screen, and that you are essentially reduced to being a spectator as the battle unfolds. Watching valuable units die because of seemingly random map placement can be frustrating

RANDOM??????

on unconvetional units:

quote: As before, there is such a wide variety of threats inherent in the endgame that it's impossible to defend against every one of them

which means: "i'm used to conventional war game and i'm too bored/unable to find new strategies for these new units"


message of the day: dont trust a review with a rating

[MarkG]

the more i read....

quote: However, removing the unit support considerations makes it far easier to wage war,

cost for unit support is still there...

quote: and with the 12-unit army system, Call to Power II (like its predecessor) replaces city micromanagement with army micromanagement

meanwhile, managing units and settlers in civ2 and smac was no micromanagment at all....

[Mad-Kat]

I don't get why people see Lawyer and Branches as so powerful. They are weak and easy to defeat. They just give a nice, different style of warfare. Too many narrow minded dumbasses just don't have the imagination to play a strategy game if it's not 100% focused on pure reality.
How anyone can put down the streamlining of CTP is beyond me. At the end of a Civ II game you had so many settlers, caravans and units going hither and thither that you could go insane trying to remember where they where all going and what they were doing. It was a nightmare. Any one that finds that fun I have just 3 letters for you. OCD! Get help now.
CTP II seems very nicely balanced from what I've played so far. I even think mod-ing this game could hurt. So what if the tech tree isn't 100% true to history! If it's for the good of game balance, let fascism come before democracy. Gameplay is more important than trying to cram EVERY tech and EVERY historical time period and unit that ever existed.

This brief rant was brought to you by the sucky reviewers at Gamespot
[This message has been edited by Mad-Kat (edited November 20, 2000).]

[MarkG]

quote: Originally posted by Mad-Kat on 11-20-2000 08:09 PM This brief rant was brought to you by the sucky reviewers at Gamespot

let it all out Mad-Kat


i think i'm going to postpone the preview a couple more days. i'm afraid i'm going to write something as idiotic as this
(actually, i'm hooked on a diety game. i've got 4 small allied to me and a huge war with the major english one )


[This message has been edited by MarkG (edited November 20, 2000).]

[Mad-Kat]

Ok, I just went to Gamespot and gave CTP II a good rating. Everyone who likes CTP II get over to Gamespot give CTP II the review it deserves from the people who actually play it.
[This message has been edited by Mad-Kat (edited November 20, 2000).]

[John-SJ]

I just gave it a good rating too. Of the 10 people who have rated it so far the average is 8.6, that sounds about right to me.

John-SJ

[smellymummy]

About the random placement of units, I think that's half true. Sometimes a good job is done at placing your army in the correct position in relation to the enemy. While at other times it's like an idiot planned the attack - that's when you end up with your flanking units in the middle your front line (lambs to the slaughter?).

[Mercantile]

perhaps this is a realistic approach, its not like military history hasn't been chock full of great strategic manuevers, as well as plenty of boneheaded mistakes. I guess the crappy thing if it is random, is that you have no control. I would think as long as it is better more often than not, that would be historically accurate I am dying to know if i should buy the game. The review scared me but MarkG's rebuttal sounds great as well. I really disliked the first one???????
[This message has been edited by Mercantile (edited November 20, 2000).]

[Imran Siddiqui]

Hmmm, I guess I'll wait for other reviews in deciding to get CtP2. I always trust Gamespot as they've never been wrong in the reviews for games that I own.

And 7.2 isn't a bad score people... better than the 6.5 CtP got .

[Monkey]

WOW!!! After 19 reader reviews the score stands at 8.8. Talk about power to the people! I can't seem to find the link to read them though.... strange.

[Imran Siddiqui]

That is because there haven't been any written reviews that passed muster (100 words, etc).

[Triphosphatase]

I woudn't take Gamespot very seriously if I were you. Their reviews are biased towards large and 'popular' developers (Diablo 2) and they deviate their opinion from the crowd. They have writtin awful reviews of games, giving high marks to 'not so hot' games just to satisfy the hype (Red Alert2, Tiberium Sun).

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well all I know is that they gave a higher mark to Icewind Dale over Diablo 2, which I definetly agreed with (Diablo 2 actually didn't get a great rating).

And your remarks are simply wrong!
http://www.zdnet.com/gamespot/filter...196969,00.html

Tiberian Sun got a 7.9, which is not good at all!!

I like that you are trying to defend your game, but defaming a well known site is below you.

I consider Gamespot and PC.IGN as my sources to if I should buy a game if there is no demo and they have never failed me.

[Kautilya]

Hmm. Pc.ign has panned it as well. 6/10 http://pc.ign.com/reviews/14118.html

Though reading the review I seriously wonder how long the reviewer has played the game.