The IGN review is an outrage (unbiased opinion)

[MarkG]

yes imran, it seems like there is a LOT of EDITING since yesterday....
no note about it of course...

btw, someone should tell them that 4 players in MP is the suggested setting not the maximum....

[Monkey]

ARrrrgggh quoted instead of editing, sorry
[This message has been edited by Monkey (edited November 21, 2000).]

[Kautilya]

http://pc.ign.com/reviews/14118.html

Another gem from the review ( the revised one I think):
"The combat animations are a little tedious and,
given that you can't really interact with the battle, a little
pointless as well."
Actually you can retreat during the battle using the battle view screen.

[MisterV]

Yatermie:

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.

Sorry to change the subject, but I just wanted to comment on that.

[Triphosphatase]

They edit their original review but does not mention it anywhere on the site? This is sad coming from a respected review site. Even after they edit it, the review is still very poor.

quote: While it's certainly an improvement over the previous title, it still doesn't expand the original Civ model. We don't expect them to reinvent the genre necessarily, but it would've have been nice to see some meaningful additions to the game.

You mean the new diplomatic model is not a expansion to the original Civ model? What about the new stacked combat and its numerous unit types? That wasn't a 'meaningful addition'?

[Sarxis]

Without being too hypercritical of the review, I think IGN hit the nail on the head.

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

[marster]

I think they hit themselves in the head.

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.

[Simpleton]

After reading the ORIGINAL review I couldn't help thinking that in todays RTS dominated world CIV1 or 2 would have a tough time getting a good review. To make up for the times we live in I decided to add 2.5 review points to the review to level the playing field. Hey! CTP2 got 8.5! Not bad... Thanks IGN!

------------------
Zimmer of Zammers

[Dissident Aggressor]

actually I think you guys are biased. Yes they should compare this game to RTS games in terms of how fun it is. Their review is compared to ALL other games. It is designed to convince people to buy one game over another no matter what genre it is. It should even be compared to sports games in terms of how fun it is. But I agree their should be a separate paragraph in the review specifically addressing TBS issues. And I think this separate subsection should be reviewed by a person who likes the genre, or at least doesn't not like it.

But yes this game should be compared to games of other genres because that is their system as is systems of all other online or printed magazines. I just don't like the reviewing system as is, and should be modified. I think reviews should be written by at least 4 people that like different kinds of games. Say sports, sims, strategy, and action games. This would be the only fair way to review any one game. Or at the very least have 2 different strategy reviewers review this game. One RTS and one TBS. This way a prospective RTS gamer that is considering buying this game gets 2 different points of view. And TBS gamers that want to buy it also get 2 different points of view. And the scores should be averaged.
[This message has been edited by Dissident Aggressor (edited November 23, 2000).]

[MarkG]

quote: Originally posted by Dissident Aggressor on 11-23-2000 04:10 AM actually I think you guys are biased. Yes they should compare this game to RTS games in terms of how fun it is. Their review is compared to ALL other games. It is designed to convince people to buy one game over another no matter what genre it is. It should even be compared to sports games in terms of how fun it is.

you've go to be joking! "fun" is not something measurable when it comes to different genres and different groups of people. how can you compare the "fun" of winning a soccer game after 10 minutes and a civ game after 15 hours?

quote: But yes this game should be compared to games of other genres because that is their system as is systems of all other online or printed magazines.

somehow i was under the impression that everyone reviewed a game in comparison to other games of the same genre. especially with civ games, i dont remember any review making references to rts games...

quote: I think reviews should be written by at least 4 people that like different kinds of games. Say sports, sims, strategy, and action games. This would be the only fair way to review any one game.

i dont see why a strategy game should appeal to a sports fan.

[Simpleton]

I agree with Judge. It's unfair to have someone who only plays RTS review a different genre just as it would be wrong for me to review a RTS game. For example I hated absolutely hated Ages of Empires. But I acknowledge that it is a good game from others I've talked to but I would have given it a 4/10 at the most.

[Dissident Aggressor]

but don't you see it as unfair to have only a TBS fan review the game? What if someone who likes RTS game is interested in buying it. He reads some biased review from a TBS fan and buys the game and doesn't like it. Of course this works both ways as in this case.
Yeah having sports fan review it does seem dumb. But at the very least both a person who likes TBS and one that like RTS should review the game. This way someone who like starcraft relate to the RTS reviewers comments more. And people like us could relate to the TBS reviewer and seriously consider his negative comments.
[This message has been edited by Dissident Aggressor (edited November 24, 2000).]

[Judge]

Game reviews and any other reviews for that matter are supposed to be impartial and unbiased. For example it would not be at all fair to compare say Star Wars with The Silence of the Lambs especially if the reviewers comments related to how much "fun" the reviewer had watching each. On the other hand it might be relevant to the review to say that "Science fiction fans might prefer Star Wars"

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.

Personally I like most "good" games - Tony Hawk Pro skater 2 is a great game and offers some light relief from Call to Power II or Red Alert but it would be ridiculous for me to say in a review that Tony Hawks was better or vica versa!

[Judge]

Dissident Aggressor:

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.

Personally I think that to qualify as a reviewer of computer games you should like most or all game types. Reviewers who don't like certain genres should simply refuse to review games belonging those genres as their opinion would be too biased.

[Grier]

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.