What is with the reviews?

[dainbramaged13]

All the reviews, in my opinion seem to rave about all the important stuff (Diplomacy, graphics, gameplay, interface..) and then nitpick the stuff i dont care about (trade... what else, anybody?), and then make all these sweeping generalizations about how the game didn't revolutionize the genre. Well, does it matter if it revolutionizes the genre. revolutionizers get 10s. very good knock-offs should get somewhere aroun 7+-9-, not 6s and 6.5s its ridiculous, and they dont even explain what they mean when they generalize how bad it is.
can somebody explain?

[Darkknight]

Most of the bad reviews came from RTS reviewers or extreme sid fanatics who were biased against the game already. The good reviews come from people who have actually played the game for more then one day (like MarkG for example if he ever gets around to writing one, How's it going??)

anyway just my thoughts...

------------------
" mind over body "

[wheathin]

Not to touch off another ctp-smac war, but I think that a lot of reviewers liked the extensive backstory and personalities in SMAC. After all, reviewers play dozens of games a year or more, and if one stands out as having good writing and plot, it will get high marks.

However, the same thing that allows diplomacy in SMAC to seem more well developed - seven clearly-defined and well developed personalities - hinders replayability. If you don't like all the characters, tough. The same things that are appealing over five or ten games get annoying and predictable over 100 or 200. But reviewers never play so many games (at least not before the writing the reviews) . . . Consequently, reviewers remember the refreshing originality and well developed plot and diplomacy of SMAC, contrasted with the straight-forward historical empire building of CtP2, and in any quick evaluation, it is not surprising the CtP2 suffers.

I would argue this is a function of the genre itself, not of a particular game. (CtP being historical, SMAC being fictional) The only valid diplomatic comparison is between Civ2 and CtP2.

Not having the game yet (it's there under the tree... I can see it! ), can someone compare them for me?

[Christian B]

Bad reviews.
Is it illigal to dislike ctp2? Even a lot of folks on this site has reportet several bugs.
Another question is who is most objective, game reviewers or fans defending the game? I am not saying that all the negative reviews neccesserely are fair, but then again maybe the game isn`t better then a 5. I haven`t played it yet, so i don`t know.
[This message has been edited by Christian B (edited December 04, 2000).]

[Barry Brenesal]

I don't see this as "either/or." I like CTP2, but I also like SMAC. If I had to choose between the two, I give the palm to SMAC, for the very reason already mentioned: it provides much greater diplomatic feedback, and it personalizes each AI-driven opponent. In CTP2, the Egyptians are the Germans are the Brazilians, as far as the game is concerned; all that changes are the naming conventions. By contrast, each faction in SMAC is tweaked to provide different playing advantages and disadvantages. And I like that.

But CTP2 wins hands down on the graphical front. I greatly enjoy stacked units. And the pace, though slower than SMAC, builds to a very tense peak.

So, assuming no one objects, I'll just keep on enjoying both games.

[Dissident Aggressor]

well having played the game, I'd give it a 7 or 7.5. anything below 7 is just too low. This game has a solid gameplay and graphics. the sound is adequate to good. Of course there are bugs. I think this caused ultima's bad review last year. So Activision was asking for it when they released a game with so many bugs. I know christmas is important, but still... But the gameplay stays true to the civ genre. And it is fun, so how can they give it less than a 7?

[MarkG]

quote: Originally posted by Christian B on 12-04-2000 06:04 PM Bad reviews. Is it illigal to dislike ctp2?

of course not. the only thing i personally ask form a review is that is has valid arguments

quote: Even a lot of folks on this site has reportet several bugs.

and bugs is the only issue that one should look for when writing a review?

quote: Another question is who is most objective, game reviewers or fans defending the game?

you cant characterize revierwrs or "simple" player just like that. some reviewers and some players are objective. some are not...

[Christian B]

and bugs is the only issue that one should look for when writing a review?

Definitly Not, but bugs do not make a game great.

you cant characterize revierwrs or "simple" player just like that. some reviewers and some players are objective. some are not...

I agree, but from all the negativ reviews you can`t say (and i am not saying you are) it is all nonsens.

For the record: i have NOT played the game.

[MarkG]

quote: Originally posted by Christian B on 12-07-2000 02:17 PM I agree, but from all the negativ reviews you can`t say (and i am not saying you are) it is all nonsens. For the record: i have NOT played the game.

well, if you ever get the game, come back to mine and others' posts in the threads about the specific reviews and tell me if all is "ok" in them....

and yes, the possibility of a review being a total nonsense is existing!

[Sabre2th]

quote: Is it illigal to dislike ctp2? Even a lot of folks on this site has reportet several bugs.

pretty much every game has bugs when it first comes out. ctp had a few(?) more than it should have, but you have to expect some problems when a game comes out. that's what patches are for.

as for the bad reviews..... yes, i believe some of the reviews have been unfair, but reviewers are entitled to their own opinions

[Big Dave]

Yes, reviewers are entitled to their own opinion, that's what they get paid for. However they also get paid for being objective. When they fail in either of these things they produce a bad (i.e. inacurate) review.

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

Do the Vatican police speak Pig Latin?

[Imran Siddiqui]

So... everyone that disagrees with you is non-Objective?

[Barry Brenesal]

Reviewers are *not* paid to be objective. However, they should always know the genre they're reviewing, and understand the basic mindset of the target audience. This ensures that the same audience, reading that review, will at least understand where the reviewer is coming from in his/her criticisms.

[wheathin]

I noticed from the reviews mentioned on the CtP2 front page, that again, reviewers want to compare this to AoE or AoK. Uh... RTS? I mean, sure, I guess it's flattering that a TBS can be compared to an RTS, but come on.

I wonder if that's a result of there being so few TBS out there that people are forgetting it's a separate (and far older) genre than RTS.

[WesW]

Well, I think we all have to admit that the TBS market is small compared to the overall game market, and reviewers at these magazines are asked to review all kinds of games every month. Thus the people who choose to work as reviewers are probably fans of the most popular genres.
I am sure that some reviewers, if not most, have never played TBS games for their own enjoyment, and thus are inclined to view them with distaste in general. Also, since TBS games so much deeper than other genres, the reviewers' knowledge base for comparison is very inadequate.

For a fairly small niche market like TBS, I think people are better off getting their recommendations from niche sites, like Apolyton.