The IGN review is an outrage (unbiased opinion)

[marster]

quote: Originally posted by Grier on 11-24-2000 11:14 AM 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.

I agree on checking multiple sources. (That doesn't excuse IGN, though...)

I don't think the review was good because it wholly omits or only most limitedly covers key features of the game, such as the scenarios, CTPII's customizability, the AI intelligence at different levels, and unconventional warfare.

It's kinda like saying, volvos look boxy and nonaerodynamic, and thus you shouldn't buy them; without examining their safety, their maintenance costs, durability, handling, whatever. Examining these features may lead the consumer to think volvos still are a bad buy, but at least a reviewer should examine them. Otherwise it's not a review just an overview. Which is what the IGN article is.

This is a problem with internet reviews in general. People can say whatever they want and just can't be held highly accountable. If this was a print review, I think the accountability would be much higher.

On the other side, it's not like there aren't a bazillion recources like IGN only clicks away -- a bad review is only their loss in the long run. I liked gamespot's (for instance) coverage much more because it offered so much more information that allowed the reader to make a choice (and offers space for reader reviews and other opinions). I don't care if IGN didn't like the game; I think that's totlly good. I'd like to know why so I can make my own decision about buying it.

After talking with them, I don't think IGN is getting my eyes again.

-mario

[Imran Siddiqui]

quote: My whole point hinges around the fact that reviews should be unbiased

Hehehe... this is one of the funniest things I've read! NO REVIEW IS UNBIASED! Everyone has their biases on what they like or dislike! Just because a review is bad means they are biased, BUT if CtP2 gets a good review it means they are unbiased? Come on!

[dainbramaged13]

quote: Originally posted by Depp on 11-21-2000 01:33 PM This guy should be told what a fool he made of himslef. I mean he is just didn't know what kind of game this was. And im pretty sure he is 14 years old as well...

HEEYYYY!! there is NOTHING wrong with 14 year-olds!!! as soon as i get the game and review it im sure my review will be better than that RTS-loving puke's review.

[Big Dave]

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui on 11-24-2000 03:08 PM Hehehe... this is one of the funniest things I've read! NO REVIEW IS UNBIASED! Everyone has their biases on what they like or dislike! Just because a review is bad means they are biased, BUT if CtP2 gets a good review it means they are unbiased? Come on!

The reviewer was biased against the entire genre, Imran. This is what most of the gripes in this thread are about (just in case you hadn't read the rest of the thread). Having someone who hates TBS revivew CTP2, or SMAC or Civ3 is going to return a negative review on all 3 products because they're all TBS. And don't ask me to review AOK or any of that ilk because I hate RTS, therefore you'd get a biased review.

------------------
Big Dave

Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice, shame on me!

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well he seemed to like Civ2... just so know, this IGN is one of the reasons I WILL NOT be buying CtP2. Civ2 reviewed by people that didn't like TBS got good scores (same with SMAC)!

[Kautilya]

Yes well let's just say that while various sorts of riff-raff are capabable of enjoying Civ2 and SMAC only the true connoiseurs can appreciate CTP2.


Actually I will be the first to admit that CTP2 doesn't have the immediate pulling power and atmosphere of SMAC which had a terrific plot and personalities. That is no doubt why the reviewer didn't like it. But for anyone who intends to play a long time, CTP2 is better. The interface is easier to use and the AI is stronger. These are the things that matter in the long run when the superficial plot elements have long worn thin.