Tweet
IGN replies..
Tal Blevins of IGN was kind enough to reply to an e-mail I had sent them about the CTP2 review. Here is some of what he said:
"It seems the CtP2 review has caused a little controversy in the community
:0)
Actually the reviewer is very familiar with TBS games and he's been playing
CtP2 for over a week now. To be honest, we've only received three letters of
complaint about the review from yourself, Erik Paulson, and Martin. And I
assume you all either know each other or have contact on a CtP2 forum since
the letters were all very similar and expressed the same concerns.
We still stand behind his review (although I do understand the frustration
with his comparisons to a game outside of the TBS genre) and, while a 6.0
isn't a great score, it's not a bad one either. It just means he thought
CtP2 was an average game, and after playing it for a while myself, I'd have
to agree with him. While I loved the original Civ and SMAC (although it was
a bit abstract), the CtP series has never tripped my trigger like Sid's
original game did. But, like you said, CtP2 IS better than the original
Civ2: CtP...we gave CtP a 4.3. I agree that the stacked combat is a big
difference, but it still doesn't change the basics of the game very much,
and the other things you list are only minor differences in my eyes.
Overall, I think you may be reading more into our review than is there.
Scott certainly didn't hate the game, but he didn't fall head over heels for
it either. Remember, reviews of any type are just opinions...no one is
perfectly right or wrong. We can only hope to get the facts right, and if
that's the case, then we do have a problem."
Also from the next e-mail:
"I agree with you to some degree. Some of the points in Scott's review were
TBS generalizations, but remember that we report to a wide audience at
IGNPC, not just fans of a particular genre, so we have to explain the basics
of any game. I didn't take his describing the game as "slow" as a criticism
neccesarily, just an explanation of how TBS games differ from RTS. Like I
said, I think the CtP2 fanatics jumped on this review and thought Scott
slammed the game, which isn't the case. A score of 6.0 is an "average"
game, and while CtP2 included some great improvements over the original CtP,
it still didn't live up to the Civ legacy in his eyes...or mine for that
matter.
Feel free to post parts of that earlier email, and this one as well. I'm
certainly up for good debates, and we love hearing from the
community...especially the fans of particualr games. Since you're on a CtP2
message board, I'm assuming that most people love the game, and that might
be why there's such an uproar over this review. We certainly respect their
opinions (reviews are subjective after all...they're just opinions), and we
just hope that at least some members of the community can see where Scott
was coming from since this was aimed at the average gamer who might see CtP2
on the shelf and wonder what it's like, as well as including info for the
gamer who's at least marginally familiar with the series."
I don't know if this will change anyone's mind about the review but it's nice to know that they are responsive to readers' opinions.
"It seems the CtP2 review has caused a little controversy in the community
:0)
Actually the reviewer is very familiar with TBS games and he's been playing
CtP2 for over a week now. To be honest, we've only received three letters of
complaint about the review from yourself, Erik Paulson, and Martin. And I
assume you all either know each other or have contact on a CtP2 forum since
the letters were all very similar and expressed the same concerns.
We still stand behind his review (although I do understand the frustration
with his comparisons to a game outside of the TBS genre) and, while a 6.0
isn't a great score, it's not a bad one either. It just means he thought
CtP2 was an average game, and after playing it for a while myself, I'd have
to agree with him. While I loved the original Civ and SMAC (although it was
a bit abstract), the CtP series has never tripped my trigger like Sid's
original game did. But, like you said, CtP2 IS better than the original
Civ2: CtP...we gave CtP a 4.3. I agree that the stacked combat is a big
difference, but it still doesn't change the basics of the game very much,
and the other things you list are only minor differences in my eyes.
Overall, I think you may be reading more into our review than is there.
Scott certainly didn't hate the game, but he didn't fall head over heels for
it either. Remember, reviews of any type are just opinions...no one is
perfectly right or wrong. We can only hope to get the facts right, and if
that's the case, then we do have a problem."
Also from the next e-mail:
"I agree with you to some degree. Some of the points in Scott's review were
TBS generalizations, but remember that we report to a wide audience at
IGNPC, not just fans of a particular genre, so we have to explain the basics
of any game. I didn't take his describing the game as "slow" as a criticism
neccesarily, just an explanation of how TBS games differ from RTS. Like I
said, I think the CtP2 fanatics jumped on this review and thought Scott
slammed the game, which isn't the case. A score of 6.0 is an "average"
game, and while CtP2 included some great improvements over the original CtP,
it still didn't live up to the Civ legacy in his eyes...or mine for that
matter.
Feel free to post parts of that earlier email, and this one as well. I'm
certainly up for good debates, and we love hearing from the
community...especially the fans of particualr games. Since you're on a CtP2
message board, I'm assuming that most people love the game, and that might
be why there's such an uproar over this review. We certainly respect their
opinions (reviews are subjective after all...they're just opinions), and we
just hope that at least some members of the community can see where Scott
was coming from since this was aimed at the average gamer who might see CtP2
on the shelf and wonder what it's like, as well as including info for the
gamer who's at least marginally familiar with the series."
I don't know if this will change anyone's mind about the review but it's nice to know that they are responsive to readers' opinions.
Comment